A person who has deserted farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act has the owner of the farmland cultivate the farmland, and the so-called “farmland of the farmer” under the Farmland Reform Act.

If Gap had not cultivated the farmland before the enforcement of this Act, regardless of the deceased non-party Eul's house, who was the head of the household, while living in Busan, and in addition, Gap actually engaged in living together with the above head of the household at the time when this Act enters into force, or if it is not recognized that Gap led to the living of his family by leading and supervising the farming of the farmland at the time when this Act enters into force, Gap was a family member of the deceased non-party Eul, who was the head of the household at the time of the enforcement of this Act, and had actually cultivated the land at the time of this case which was owned by the head of the household at that time, but this farmland is not farmland of the farm household under this Act.

Articles 5(2)(a) and 3 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Category Mephos

Kim

Gwangju High Court Decision 62Na370 delivered on April 24, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney and the answer by the Defendant’s attorney are examined.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are examined.

According to Article 5 (2) (a) of the Farmland Reform Act, a person other than a farm household purchases farmland from the Government, and Article 3 of the same Act provides that "farmer" means a lawful social unit in which a householder or a family member living together makes an independent living together with a farmer as his main business. According to Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a main business of Article 3 of the Act means a member of a household or a family living together with a farmer, who is engaged directly in the cultivation of farmland or maintains his family's livelihood by carrying out his own effort or supervising the cultivation of farmland, and therefore, "legal social unit" of Article 3 of the Act refers to the unit in which a family living with a householder is actually living together with a householder at the time of the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, and the plaintiff cannot be found to have been able to prove that the plaintiff actually resided in the farmland or his family living together with his own opinion of merit at the time of the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, which is the farmland reform theory and its reasoning.

The supplementary opinion with the judge of the Supreme Court is as follows.

According to Article 5 (2) (A) of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the majority theory recognized that the farmland in this case was purchased by the Government pursuant to the provisions of the same Act. However, according to the provisions of Article 2 (2) (a) of the same Act, the farmland in this case was disposed of as the self-owned farmland in the farmland complaint on the land in this case (not the concept of self-owned farmland in the Farmland Reform Act, but it has been interpreted as excluded from the purchase by referring to as self-owned farmland on the land in the name of the former owner at the time of entry into force of the same Act), and it can be sufficiently recognized that there is a self-contributation or fact-finding with respect to the farmland in this case before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff as the plaintiff has no self-contributation or self-contributation with respect to the farmland in this case before the entry into force of the Farmland Reform Act, and thus, the plaintiff's conclusion that the ownership in this case can not be redeemed by the majority opinion.

Therefore, the result of rejecting the plaintiff's claim is the same as the majority theory, but it is not possible to follow the majority theory for that reason.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges (the supplementary opinion that the judge of the Supreme Court is the one with the assent of all participating judges).

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Magman (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak and Mag-Jak Ling Ling Ling-Jing Ling Ling