The validity of the revocation disposition of distribution of farmland due to the internal circumstances of the administrative authority, not based on a request for re-adjudication or appeal for farmland and distributed through legitimate procedures, because the current status of land is deemed farmland;

Farmland distribution disposition which has been lawfully made shall not be revoked due to internal circumstances of the administrative authority, unless it is based on the decision of the administrative authority according to the procedures, such as re-adjudication, appeal, etc. prescribed by this Act.

The number of hand; and

Kimhae-soo et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 62Na478 delivered on February 27, 1963

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The first ground for appeal of the defendant's legal representative is examined. This case's original judgment is determined to have been revoked as of December 23, 1957, when farmland distribution to the non-party Lee Young-young was excluded from farmland distribution, and Lee Young-young was not acquired ownership. However, as long as the present state of land is recognized as farmland and the farmland was distributed to the farm household through legitimate procedures, it cannot be revoked due to internal circumstances of the administrative authority that the farmland distribution is excluded from the distribution. Thus, it is not possible to revoke the farmland distribution without the decision of the Seoul High Court's decision of this case's decision, which is the owner of the farmland (the non-party Lee Young-chul, the heir of this case). If the farmland distribution was made by the decision of the court prior to the revocation of farmland distribution, but if the original judgment was lawfully revoked on the ground that the farmland distribution was excluded from the farmland distribution, it cannot be viewed as farmland distribution, and therefore, it should still be viewed as an unlawful disposition of this case's ownership. Furthermore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to this case's reasoning.

Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ma88, 198