Farmland Distribution Order under Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

A. Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of this Act shall be deemed to include the purport that a farmer shall be distributed, even though the farmer is not in violation of the distribution order under this Article, if there are more than a farmer to whom distribution is to be made.

B. Where a farmland distribution became final and conclusive but there was an error in the distribution order, the revocation of the distribution disposition by the farmland committee on the ground that it was located shall be null and void as the defect is significant and apparent.

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Kim Jong-chul

Kim Jong-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 61Do1623 delivered on July 25, 1962, Seoul High Court Decision 61Do1623 delivered on July 25, 1962

This appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the ground of appeal No. 1, it is clear that the court below did not prepare a protocol despite the fact that it had been examined as to the witness's strong morals. However, according to the records, it is nothing more than the fact that the protocol was prepared in the court below, but it is nothing more than the last progress after the record was received by the Supreme Court. (2) The argument about the ground of appeal No. 2 and No. 3 as to the farmland dispute, which was discussed at the time when the Farmland Reform Committee enforced the Farmland Reform Act, distributed the farmland to the defendant, and the defendant paid full repayment of the prescribed repayment fee and completed the transfer registration of ownership to the defendant, and the decision of the court below that the farmland distribution disposition on August 29, 1960, which was made by the plaintiff's member of the farmland committee to the farm household at the time of the cancellation of the above farmland distribution disposition on which the plaintiff's request for the farmland distribution order was made, and the decision of the court below that the farmland distribution disposition on the plaintiff's farmland distribution order was invalid and void.

In this sense, the judgment of the court below is just and rather, the arguments return to the independent opinion, and there is no misunderstanding of the legal principles as to objection or re-adjudication as to the distribution of farmland.

The appeal is without merit.

Accordingly, the appeal on this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds that it is groundless, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)