Farmland Reform Act § 22. The binding force on the court of the decision of the Do Farmland Committee

With respect to the decision of the Do Farmland Committee under this Article, the court, which is not a lawsuit seeking correction in respect of the decision, shall be bound by the decision of the said Committee unless there is no ground for invalidation of the decision.

Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 4286Sang70 Delivered on October 7, 1954

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Jeon Sung-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1589 delivered on November 26, 1965

The part against the plaintiff on real estate in the original judgment No. 1 annexed to the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case on this part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Decision of Gyeonggi-do Committee on Farmland) cited by the original judgment, it is clear that defendant 1 cultivated land only for the year 1961, which does not fall under Article 11 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act, and that this lawsuit cannot be recognized as a distributed farmland by defendant 1. This lawsuit is not for the plaintiff to seek correction against the decision of the former Committee, but for the plaintiff to seek the procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer transfer registration, which was made without the plaintiff's claim of ownership. In this case, the court should be bound by the above decision unless there is any other invalidation (Supreme Court Decision 4286Hun-Ba70 delivered on October 7, 1954). It is obvious that the land is cultivated by defendant 1 without a clear ground for invalidation of the decision of the above Committee, and it is reasonable that the land is being cultivated by defendant 1 and is not affected by the above decision, and it does not affect the conclusion of this decision.

Since Defendant 1 also pointed out that he received farmland distribution in accordance with Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act even in the above decision as to the land listed in the 2 List attached to the lower judgment, the lower court’s decision to that effect is lawful, and there is no ground for appeal on this point.

In this regard, among the original judgment, the part against the plaintiff on the land indicated in the 1's list attached to the original judgment is reversed, and the case on this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's appeal on the land indicated in the 2's list is groundless and dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman