Reappeal based on the violation of precedents against the order of the court below that maintained the decision of permission of farmland auction without proof by the location agency (negative)

The court below's re-appeal that the auction real estate which is farmland has been sold to the successful bidder who does not have the certificate under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act has maintained the decision of permission of auction by the auction court as it is, is merely a mere violation of law and violation of law, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for re-appeal falling under Article 11 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Articles 11(1)3 and 13 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

Re-appellant

Daejeon District Court Order 83Ra15 dated March 25, 1983

The reappeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for re-appeal is that the court below maintained the decision of the court of auction which permitted the successful bid to the successful bidder who did not have the certification under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, even though the auction real estate of this case was farmland, and therefore, it violated the precedents of the Supreme Court. However, the theory of re-appeal is not a assertion that the interpretation of the court below on the law, order, rule or disposition constitutes a case contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court, but it is merely a assertion that there is an unlawful violation of laws and subordinate statutes in the order of the court below, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for re-appeal falling under Article 11(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. In addition, according to the records

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)