Cases where there is an error of incomplete deliberation or determination as to whether the land in dispute was a non-self-owned farmland listed in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act;

It is illegal that the court did not deliberate or decide whether the land in dispute was non-self-owned farmland purchased by this Act.

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

Korea

Defendant 1 and seven others, Attorneys Kim Jae-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 67Na619 delivered on May 10, 1968

Of the original judgment, the part against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8 are reversed;

The above part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Civil District Court.

The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 3 is dismissed.

Expenses incurred by an appeal against the defendant 3 shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff performer

If the evidence cited by the original judgment is compared to the records, it does not mean that ○○, such as the deceased Nonparty 1, is the same person, and it does not recognize the original facts of Defendant 3 and the deceased Nonparty 2, and therefore, it is not reasonable to hold that the above decision contains an error of law of fact-finding which is not based on illegality and evidence in the incomplete hearing.

Judgment on the same second ground

On the other hand, it cannot be readily concluded that the above non-party 3 acquired the ownership of the forest land in this case from the original owner non-party 1, and the original decision in the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the rule of experience or the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, there is no argument.

Judgment on the same third ground.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above part of the land purchased by the Government due to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is a legal interest to claim ownership relations at the time of the purchase, which is the basis for the plaintiff's remaining compensation relations. Thus, even if the farmland distribution procedure was not commenced, it cannot be cancelled as a matter of course by the Government as a non-self-owned farmland, the registration of ownership preservation under the name of the defendant 3 and the deceased non-party 2, which is the land belonging to the State pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that registration of ownership preservation under the name of the defendant 3 and the deceased non-party 2 and the non-party 2 had no special ground for appeal as to the non-party 3, which is the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 3, which is the ground for appeal that the above part of the land was invalid by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, which had no specific ground for appeal.

Therefore, the part concerning Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8, who are the successors of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Nonparty 2, among the original judgment, shall be reversed, and remanded to the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court, which is the original judgment. The appeal against Defendant 3 is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal arising from the above appeal shall be assessed against the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Kimchi-bak (Presiding Justice)