If the cultivation of farmland is not for the purpose of collecting small rent but for the purpose of protecting graves, it shall be considered to be the soil above even if the owner of farmland and the owner of graves are different, respectively.

If the cultivation of farmland is not for the purpose of collecting small rent, but for the purpose of protecting graves, it shall be considered to be the land above, even if the owner of the farmland is different from the owner of the grave.

Article 6 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act

Licensed vessels

Defendant 1 and 12 others

Seoul Civil Area, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na1378, 1379 delivered on May 28, 1970

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

1. We examine the remaining defendants' grounds of appeal except for the defendant Republic of Korea, Kim Hong-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act refers to farmland for which no tenant fee is collected from the previous farmland for the purpose of protecting the grave, and if the cultivation of the farmland was for the purpose of protecting the grave, not for the purpose of collecting tenant fee, it shall be deemed to be the above farmland, even if the owner of the farmland and the grave are different, it shall be deemed to be the above farmland. Thus, the court below held that the farmland of this case was not the above farmland of this case for the purpose of protecting the grave, since the 7th class 1st class 7th class 1 of the above farmland of Seoul (SY omitted omitted) was not the 14th level of the Plaintiff's graves, including the ambal spaspaspas and spas, before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that the non-party, who was delegated by the Plaintiff's deceased father-do, developed part of the farmland of this case, which was the farmland of this case, which was the farmland of this case, and decided that the above farmland of this case was not the farmland of this case for the above 14th level of farmland.

There is no reason to discuss the appeal on the premise that the grave owner and the farmland owner should coincide with each other.

In light of the records, the court below's judgment of Nos. 2 and 3 and the evidence cited in the second instance court's judgment, which held that the 14th instance court's judgment of this case was a grave for the plaintiff's assistance, shall not be deemed to have any violation of evidence in its reasoning, and even if it is not clear which relation with the plaintiff, the court below's judgment that the farmland of this case was for the protection of the 14th instance court's grave, including the above 9th court's grave, should be justified, since the farmland of this case was for the protection of the 14th court's grave including the above 9th court's grave, even if the 14th court's deceased opinion did not apply for the above 14th court's permission at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, so long as it was recognized that the above farmland was for the protection of the 14th court's 14th instance of the above grave, there is no violation

On the ground of the evidence rejected by the court below, there is no number of days of appeal to criticize the determination of legitimate facts by the court below.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in the fourth point, the court below held that the farmland of this case was already reclaimed as dry field at the time of enforcing the Farmland Reform Act, 3,150 square meters in the 78-dong, Seongdong-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and 184-5, 184-5, 184-6, 180, 250-6, 184-9, 200, 184-9, 200, 184-1, 184-7, 184-1, 280, 184-7, 181, 184-1, 280, 184-1, 280, 188, 184-1, 280, 184, 188, 184-20, 184-10, 184, 184-10, 184, 2810

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant Yeong-si, the defendant Yeong-si, the appellate court.

In light of the records, the first instance court's judgment and the evidence cited by the first instance court's judgment and the first instance court's judgment, the farmland in this case is cultivated in order to protect the 14th rank of the grave in this case which was brought up by the plaintiff, and the court below did not have any violation of evidence in the disposition that recognized that the farmland in this case constitutes the above soil in the Farmland Reform Act as farmland for which the plaintiff had been cultivated to protect the 14th rank of the grave in this case, and the court below did not have any violation of evidence in this case, and the court below has lawfully rejected the evidence of the lawsuit since the court below did not recognize the facts, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in this case as well as 14th rank of the graves in this case.

The appeal shall not be accepted, citing the evidence rejected by the court below, to criticize the legitimate cooking of evidence and its value judgment.

According to the reasoning of the second instance judgment, the court below did not examine whether the area of the above land exceeds two half of the total area of the above land or omitted the judgment because it is clearly confirmed that the area of the above land does not exceed two half of the total area of the above land exceeds the legal area of the grave and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment, since the above area of the grave exceeds the legal area of the grave, as the above area of the grave was duly declared to be the 3,150 square meters for the purpose of protecting the above grave and the 180,909 square meters and the above 173-1,244 square meters and the 173-2, 173-2, 173-2, Dong-dong, Seocho-dong, 173-dong, Dong-dong, 178, and 173-2, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, 1794 square meters. The appeal is without merit.

3. The defendant Republic of Korea's grounds of appeal are examined.

Even though the preservation registration of farmland in the name of the defendant state in the first instance court is based on the final judgment, the plaintiff who was not a party to the same final judgment cannot have res judicata effect on the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of farmland in accordance with the final judgment cannot be said to be erroneous.

There is no reason to appeal that the registration of Defendant country is final and conclusive, or that it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's request.

The second instance court has duly confirmed the fact that the farmland in this case is a building site for the purpose of protecting the fourteenth level of graves. As such, since farmland, which is the above-mentioned farmland, cannot be a government purchase pursuant to Article 3 of the Farmland Reform Act, it shall be deemed as a distribution of invalidity per annum even if it was distributed, since it is just in the judgment in the same purport, and contrary to this opinion, the judgment in the same purport shall be deemed as a distribution of invalidity per annum, and there is no number of days for the appeal to the court below that the farmland in this case

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court