Correction and validity of distributed farmland;

If the authority took all the procedures with the intention to distribute the instant land to Gap and there was such intention, but there was no error in the administrative error of the authority in writing on each of the required documents, the first distribution of the land must be deemed to have been made effective with respect to the instant land cultivated by the above Party A at the time of distribution.

Supreme Court Decision 65Da755 Decided September 21, 1965

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 66Na140 delivered on September 6, 1966

Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant is reversed.

This part shall be remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant Kim Jong-chul.

According to the facts established by the court below, Gyeongbuk-gun (No. 1 omitted) and 367 of the site, which are the land at issue in this case, are dry field at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. The fact that the non-party cultivated and distributed this to the non-party in around 1950 is entirely the same procedure that the non-party distributed the (No. 2 omitted) dry field 429 square meters to the non-party, and it is confirmed that the non-party distributed the (No. 2 omitted) dry field 429 square meters to each ledger, and the above error was discovered in the farmland repayment ledger (No. 2 omitted) and the Myeon governor corrected the (No. 1 omitted), 367 square field, which is the land at issue in this case. The court below did not deem that the distribution of the first farmland was a mere error in the indication of the subject farmland, and there is no significant and obvious reason to correct the distribution of the farmland itself. Accordingly, there is no violation of the law.

However, according to the above facts established by the court below, the non-party was taken a vehicle against the non-party, and the non-party was also such intention, but it is reasonable to view that only the documents required by the authorities due to the clerical error of the office are not sufficient to correct the indication of the land subject to distribution. In such a case, even though there is no provision to correct the indication of the farmland subject to distribution under the related laws and regulations, the first distribution of the farmland is limited to the land of this case (name 1 omitted), which was cultivated by the non-party at the time of distribution (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da755 delivered on September 21, 1965). Accordingly, the court below should have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, this appeal is justified.

Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall transfer to the police officer of the Red Circuit;