Special Cases concerning the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act (Presidential Decree No. 1360, Apr. 10, 1958) and the enforcement time of the Farmland Reform Act for farmland located in the Suwon-gu.

In the application of this Act to the farmland located in the water welfare district, the decision on whether the farmland in question is self-defensive shall be made on the basis of the enforcement date of this Act (49.6.21). Therefore, the farmland located in the water welfare district, which was not self-defensive by the prop at the time of enforcement of this Act, shall be purchased from the Government, but if it becomes impossible to do so due to external pressure, etc. while the prop is self-defensive, it shall be treated as legitimate self-de

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 29 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1977 Decided January 31, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 65Da1527, 1528, 1529 Decided November 11, 1965

Plaintiff

Gyeonggi-do

Seoul Central District Court Decision 69Na374 delivered on June 5, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the defendant's attorney are examined.

1. Special cases concerning the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act (Presidential Decree No. 1360) only did the distribution procedures, etc. for farmland located in water welfare districts differing from that located in the parallel of lat. 38 degrees of north latitude, and it did not appear that the farmland located in water welfare districts would have been implemented by the farmland reform law, but it could not be viewed that the plaintiff did not have any unlawful opinion as to the farmland located in the area of water welfare districts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 66Da1997, Jan. 31, 1967). Thus, in applying the Farmland Reform Act to the farmland located in water welfare districts, the decision of whether the farmland in question was self-owned or not was made on the basis of the date of enforcement of the said Act (No. 21, 1949) and the plaintiff could not have asserted that it was an unlawful opinion as to the farmland located in the area of water welfare districts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 65Da1527,1528, Nov. 11, 1965).

The third point of the Dong shall be examined.

In the literature of Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, it is obvious that the original judgment was the provision that grants the right to choose farmland exceeding three information to be purchased from the Government from among the farmland owned by the farmer who has self-culed or self-managed three or more arguments, and therefore, the original judgment was recognized that the farmland owned by the plaintiff in the water welfare area was not less than three information, and that the plaintiff was not purchased from the Government as the farmland he had self-employed in the principal suit (no data that can be recognized as the plaintiff's self-fluence of not less than three information in the record). Accordingly, the argument that the plaintiff was justified in the action that the plaintiff's farmland less than three information was not purchased from the Government.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu