Abandonment of farmland right and its validity before the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act;

Even if an agreement was made to waive farmland cultivation rights prior to the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, in light of the purpose of Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, this would not affect the effect of distribution under the same Act after the promulgation of the same Act.

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Deduck-ro

Long-term et al.

Busan District Court of the first instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, 55 civilian 111 delivered on September 9, 1955

The main body is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's ground of appeal is that the plaintiff cultivated the land of this case as a self-employed farmer at the time of the Farmland Reform Act, and even if the defendant cultivated the land of this case, that is, he did not judge the difference in the first and second instances even though he cultivated the land illegally without legitimate authority, the plaintiff et al., and the defendant et al. failed to correct the difference in the first and second instances. The evidence of the plaintiff's assertion in the first and second instances is flexible, and the defendant et al. adopted the defendant's answer despite the fact that the defendant et al.'s proof itself is due to the fact that the defendant et al.'s own proof itself is due to the fact that it is true, so

According to the court of first instance cited by the appellate court records and the original judgment, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant et al. cultivated the farmland in this case and distributed and repaid the farmland in this case due to the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act. The plaintiff did not have any objection as to the illegal cultivation of the farmland in this case by the defendant et al. at the time of the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act. And even if the defendant et al. agreed to cultivate the farmland in February 1949 only in the same year and give up the right of cultivation and deliver it to the plaintiff from February 1950, in light of the purport of Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, even if the defendant et al. agreed to give up the right of cultivation and deliver the farmland to the defendant et al., in light of the purport of Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, it is justifiable that the original judgment cited by the court of first instance that there is no influence on the validity of the pro

Therefore, the appeal of this case is deemed to be dismissed because it is clear that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 401, Article 95, Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)