Methods of correction of illegal and unjust dispositions by administrative agencies concerning farmland reform;

A person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to an illegal or unjust disposition by an administrative agency on farmland reform may request correction pursuant to the provisions of the Farmland Reform Act, and it cannot be based on the source law. Therefore, filing a lawsuit directly with a superior administrative agency on the disposition on farmland reform is illegal and illegal and the ruling on the source of illegality is also illegal.

Article 1 of the source Act (Law No. 211), Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 23 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Governor of Jeollabuk-do

As of October 22, 4285, the defendant's re-distribution to the plaintiff of the main market prior to June 28, 4285 with respect to farmland No. 601, 1,330, Seo-dong, Jeonju-dong, Jeonju-dong, 1. The re-distribution is revoked.

2. The ruling that re-distributions to the plaintiff in the main market prior to June 18, 4285 with respect to the farmland of 250 square meters in Jeonju-si, 258, Jeonju-si, 1239 square meters Dong-dong, 250 square meters prior to 1239 square meters Dong-dong, is revoked, respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's legal representative is seeking a ruling on the land of the 1st century, and the plaintiff was living in the 6th anniversary of the fact that the 2nd anniversary of the fact that the 1st half of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 3th half of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 2th half of the 2th half of the 2th half of the 2th half of the 2th half of the 2th half of the 3th half of the 2th half of the 196th half of the 2th half of the 196th half of the 2nd half of the 196th half of the 2nd half of the 196th half of the 2nd half of the 2nd half of the 2nd half of the 1st half of the 2nd half of the 3th half of the 2nd half of the 3th half of the 2nd half of the 3th half of the 1st half half of the 3th half.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff is now residing in Seoul, and the plaintiff was originally owned by the plaintiff 1 and 2, and the plaintiff was transferred to the non-party 3 and the non-party 4, respectively, by the farmland reform court's ruling that the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 were transferred to the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were decided to be the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 were to be the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 were to be the non-party 4 and the non-party 4 were to be the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 were to be the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 were to be the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 were to be the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 were to be the non-party 4 and the non-party 4 were to be the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 were to be the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 4.

The plaintiff head of the farmland was originally owned by the plaintiff, was distributed to the non-party 1 and 2 under the Farmland Reform Act, and was transferred to the non-party 3 and 4 in the last short-term 4284 later to the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 acquired each farmland from the Dongin, etc. as of May 19 of the same year. At the same time, the farmland committee in the previous city as of May 19 of the same year provided that the farmland was sub-Dong in the previous city, and at the same time, the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 decided that the plaintiff in the application for return to farming should be the non-party 3 and the non-party 3 filed a complaint against the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 filed a complaint against the re-distribution decision of the previous city in the previous city, and the fact that the defendant revoked the distribution decision of the previous city, there is no dispute between the parties.

Since this case concerns farmland reform, the plaintiff asserts that it will be resolved by the Farmland Reform Act and that it is not a source of action. According to the Sub-Appellant Act, a person whose rights or interests have been infringed by an administrative agency's unlawful or unjust disposition may file a lawsuit directly with a superior administrative agency except as otherwise provided for in other Acts, and a person who has an objection to the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act may file a request for a change of his cancellation. According to the Farmland Reform Act, the party who has an objection to the decision may file a request for a reconsideration of the Farmland Reform Committee with the City Farmland Committee, and the Do Farmland Committee may file a successive appeal with the City Farmland Committee, and there is an objection to the interpretation and application of Acts and subordinate statutes, or if there is an objection to the above decision, there is no other need to file a lawsuit with the court having jurisdiction over the location of the farmland concerned, and therefore, an interested party who has an objection to the farmland reform is not a party who has an unlawful right to the farmland reform, which is a new one of the parties to the farmland Reform Act, and therefore, is not a person who has been subject to the law of the previous farmland Reform Act.

The term of office of a judge Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)