Cases in which there is an error of incomplete hearing and incomplete hearing determined as a share of the farmland in dispute without specifying the part of the farmland owned by the owner of the farmland in excess of the limit area stipulated in Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act.

A. There is an error of incomplete deliberation or lack of reasons that judged that 600/1185 of the co-owned share of the farmland falls under the above land without examining whether or not there is a specific fact and the distribution of the above part of the land to be owned by the owner under paragraph (1) 7 of this Article.

B. It cannot be said that the government purchases farmland, which was a part of a grave, due to the removal of a grave from the enforcement of this Act or the removal of the grave itself due to cremation.

case.

Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act

Kim Jong- fishery

Taxide;

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na548 delivered on August 18, 1965, Seoul High Court Decision 65Na548 delivered on August 18, 1965

The part of the original judgment against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the records, the original judgment was examined in detail, and the witness of the original court after the plaintiff's testimony and the return of Kim Jong-dong Kim Jong-dong, Kim Jong-dong and the whole purport of the parties' pleadings after considering the whole purport of the parties' pleadings, this case's farmland was determined as a number of children from the time when the plaintiff's owner of the plaintiff's fleet owned the plaintiff's 7 large-scale funeral funeral (joint funeral) and as a result, the plaintiff succeeded to the plaintiff's possession of the farmland in order to safeguard the plaintiff's seven large-scale funeral funeral (joint funeral). In addition, the tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's tenant's revenue.

The second ground for appeal is examined.

The Farmland Reform Act only provides that the government shall not purchase the existing land within the scope stipulated in Article 6 (1) 7 of the same Act, and there is no provision that the government shall purchase the land recognized as the land of the grave in the event that the graves protected after the enforcement of the same Act are moved to another grave or the grave itself becomes lost due to cremation (the provision on the purchase of farmland in the Farmland Reform Act is a temporary period of time). In this case, there is no argument that the court below argued that the whole land of the farmland was the existing land of the 7 large-parents of the plaintiff, until the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, while confirming the fact that the whole land of the farmland was the existing land of the 7 large-parents of the plaintiff, until the enforcement of the same Act, the fact that the grave was removed and the location of the

The third point of the Dong shall be examined.

Article 6 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act provides that with respect to the existing land exceeding the limit area stipulated in subparagraph 7, the owner of the above land shall specify the part of the above land to be owned by the said subparagraph and the government shall not purchase it only after the said part was made. As such, the court below determined that among the farmland, the part of the above land to be owned by the plaintiff pursuant to the illegal article was an existing land with the whole area of 1185 square meters for the protection of one plaintiff's seven grandparents' graves, and concluded that 600/1185 of the above land's co-ownership falls under the above land recognized by the above Article 605 of the farmland's co-ownership as the original judgment without any rash of the deliberation about the existence or non-existence of the specific part of the land which the plaintiff should hold pursuant to the above Article 6 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law that did not meet the reasons for the judgment, and therefore, this part of the original judgment is reversed.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)