The validity of farmland sale devolving upon the Director-General of the Do Office after the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act.

At the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, more than the farmland is the disposition of selling it to the administrative agency is an invalid disposition without authority.

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] 63Da142 decided May 9, 1963 (Article 2(35) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, Article 7524)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (62A80)

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant 1 shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 is dismissed.

The plaintiff's indictment is dismissed.

Of the litigation costs, the costs of a public prosecution between the plaintiff and defendant 1 shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances, and the costs of a public prosecution between the plaintiff, defendant 2 and defendant 3 shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall change the judgment of the first instance.

As to the Plaintiff, Defendant 1: (a) b. (c) 1,965 of the real estate list as indicated in the separate sheet, Defendant 2: (a) d part d part d part d part d part d in the same list; and (f) 3 of the same list as Defendant 3: (b) f) f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. d part d part d part d part d part d part d

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant, etc. in both the first and second instances and the second instances, and the defendant, etc.'s attorney shall seek a provisional execution only under paragraph (2), and the part against the defendant 1 in the first instance judgment shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the plaintiff in both the first and second instances,

In the list of real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 1, 2, and 3 (except for new testimony) of the lower court’s witness No. 1, 2, and 3 (except for new testimony) as stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 3) are without dispute between the parties. In full view of the contents of No. 1, 2, and No. 3 of the evidence No. 1, which are acknowledged to be genuine by Non-party No. 1’s testimony of the witness No. 1, the lower court’s determination that the land had been originally miscellaneous before and after 34 years old, Japan, which had been cultivated and continued to be cultivated by the Defendants without any change in its contents before and after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment that the Plaintiff had no legal title to the farmland No. 1, 1, 3, and 9, which had no legal title to the farmland No. 1, and thus, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff had no legal title to the farmland under the same title No. 1, 3, as the Plaintiff’s.

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Judge)