1. Validity of the school practice permit made under the name of the Governor;

2. Ratification of invalid administrative acts;

1. Since it is clear that a school practice site employee permit for farmland belongs to the decision of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry in accordance with Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, even if the Minister delegated the performance of the affairs to the Governor of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Do Governor shall execute the affairs in the name of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, i.e., the name of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry in performing the affairs.

2. The concept of ratification of invalid acts in administrative acts cannot be justified.

Article 119 of the former Civil Act, Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Dang Chang-chul, a foundation

Defendant

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

The defendant's representative is based on the judgment of the same district, and the plaintiff's representative is based on the judgment of dismissal of prosecution.

The actual statement of both parties in the plaintiff's representative was made by the Do governor on April 1, 283 at the time when the Do governor established the Do governor on May 15, 284 at the time when the Do governor applied for the authorization to establish the Do governor on May 15, 284 at the time when the Do governor applied for the authorization to establish the Do governor on January 15, 284 to establish the Do governor on September 5, 4284 at the Do governor, while the Do governor applied for the authorization to establish the Do governor on September 12, 284 at the time when the Do governor applied for the authorization to establish the Do governor on September 5, 284 at the time of the Do governor's regular high school and the Do governor to operate the Do governor. The plaintiff foundation obtained the authorization to establish the Do governor school on March 21, 285 at the Do governor school on March 21, 2085.

In addition, the annexed list of the land was owned by the Defendant as the 4th KIC and the 5th KIC and the 5th KIC and the 5th KIC were to use the land as the 4th KIC and the 5th KIC and the 4th KIC and the 5th KIC were to use the land as the 4th KIC and the 5th KIC and to use the 5th KIG for the 6th anniversary of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act as the 4th KIC and the 5th KIC and the 5th KIG to use the land as the 4th KIC and the 5th KIC and the 5th KIG were to use the land as the 6th KIG for the short-term 4th anniversary of the fact that the 5th KIG was to use the land as the 6th KIGC and the 5th KIC for the short-term development.

Since this land is owned by the defendant as a Confucian School Foundation for about forty (40) years before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the defendant has been growing since it was distributed since then, and the production amount of the plaintiff principal has been disputed or the defendant has acquired crops every year. It is invalid that the plaintiff head has no authority to permit the production of the plaintiff principal, i.e., the Dong branch office, and even if it is within the authority of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, the plaintiff head's establishment of the Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's 20 years Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's 20 years Do governor's Do governor's 1.

As a method of proof, the representative of the plaintiff submitted the evidence Nos. 1 through 14, and used the testimony of Non-party Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the original trial by Non-party No. 1, 2, and 3, and each of them is the site for each of them. The defendant's representative submitted the evidence No. 1, 2, 3, and used the testimony of Non-party No. 4, 5, and 6 of the witness No. 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, and 14, and denies the establishment of evidence No. 2, 3, and the each of them

Since there is no dispute between the parties that the land was owned by the Confucian School Foundation in this City for a period of several hundred years until the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the land in this case will be sold to the defendant that the arable acquired by the State, unless there is a special reason excluded from the Doctrine Reform Act.

According to Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Postal Reform Act, the representative of the plaintiff asserted that he obtained permission from the Do governor of the Do governor of 4284 on April 10, 4284, but it is clear that he belongs to the decision of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Thus, even if he delegated the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry with the execution of his affairs, the Do governor should execute it under the name of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, i.e., the name of the Do governor, so long as it is so long as it is concerned with the authority of the Do governor, it cannot be deemed null and void. On June 5, 4290, the representative of the plaintiff returned the approval of the Do governor under the name of the Do governor of Do governor of Do governor of Do, but it cannot be deemed to be valid even if he returned several Do governor's certificate, which is invalid, and it cannot be deemed to be a new government's new land reform order within the 9th anniversary of this decision.

Judges Lee Il-il (Presiding Judge)