Cases not considered to be the proof of the agency where the farmland is located under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act;

A. In acquiring farmland by auction, there is a need to prove the locational office in accordance with Paragraph 2 of this Article even in acquiring farmland by auction.

B. Since the certificate of the issuance of the amnesty at the successful bidder's location is not a certificate of the farmland location office, it cannot be viewed as a certification under the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article.

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Re-appellant

Daejeon District Court Decision 66Ra106 delivered on December 14, 1966

The reappeal is dismissed.

Judgment on the grounds for reappeal

According to Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, in acquiring farmland by auction, there is a need to prove the agency where the farmland was located, and according to the certificate of the Myeon of the farmland where the farmland was located attached to the records (record 105), it is proved only that the farmland was the farmland of which repayment was completed, and according to the certificate of the Myeon of the Myeon of the re-appellant's seat, the successful bidder, and (Records 106), the Re-Appellant's farmland was 4326 square meters, so the acquisition of the farmland of this case does not exceed 3 information even if the farmland was acquired. However, the certification is not not not a proof of the agency where the farmland was located, and it cannot be viewed as a certification under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act. Accordingly, the measure of denying the bid of this case in the original decision is justifiable, and the head of the Myeon of the farmland where the farmland was located refused to issue the certificate by the room, and thus the conclusion cannot be different.

In addition, there is no argument that the certification of the provisions of Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is sufficient only to prove that the farmland not distributed by the Farmland Reform Act or the farmland has been repaid.

Therefore, the reappeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu