Main Issues
The validity of distribution of the land occupied by the military, which was not farmland at the time the change of the purpose of use was revoked and the land was occupied by the military.
Summary of Judgment
The effective time of the decision to change the purpose of farmland and the revocation thereof.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 6 (1) 4 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act
Plaintiff-Appellee
Maximum accommodation
Defendant-Appellant
Park Man-man
Judgment of the lower court
Busan District Court Decision 61No545 delivered on November 9, 1961
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The original judgment in light of the grounds of appeal on the part of the defendant's agent, as stated in the annexed appellate brief, judged that the land was not farmland, regardless of the land category or phenomenon entered in the public register, since the original judgment was recognized as the site by the urban district plan, and it was merely a wrong opinion like the theory of litigation. However, if the Government recognizes a change in the purpose of use of farmland pursuant to Article 6 (1) 4 of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the farmland is excluded from the government wholesale retroactively on June 21, 1949, and if the approval of change in purpose of use was revoked, it was purchased from the government if the land was farmland, and the distribution of the land should be determined as farmland by the land phenomenon at the time of actual distribution, and it is not clear that the original judgment was invalid for the defendant to the extent that it did not affect the purpose of use of the farmland by the defendant for the purpose of use of the farmland, and it was not permissible for the defendant to purchase the land by the court below for 195 months and 196 months.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400, 89, and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Justices Cho Jin-man (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Decision 2011Hun-Ma148 delivered on August 1, 201