The so-called “a farmland for which a farmer who has paid a facility for the protection of a grave and the completion of the facility for a grave are different,” and the so-called “a land for which a tenant has not collected a tenant fee for the protection of a grave” under Article 6(1)7 of the Farmland

The term "existing soil" in paragraph (1) 7 of this Article refers to the cases where a farmer who has paid the completion of his/her works for the protection of a tomb is different from a cultivator who has paid the completion of his/her works for the protection of a tomb.

Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act

For the whole of the mine, the R&C

Defendant 2

Gwangju District Court Decision 65Na405 delivered on September 28, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined as to the defendants' attorney;

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, the plaintiff purchased the main land from the non-party 1 on March 15, 1946, which was owned by him, as a plot of land on the 12 high-ranking ○○○ 12 high-ranking funeral for the plaintiff Sejong, the plaintiff was entrusted to the non-party 2, who was the deceased non-party 2, among the plaintiff Sejong, on April 23, 1946, but the above trust contract was terminated after the death of the Dong at the time of the June 25 incident.

From the time of purchase, the answer 448 of the land was cultivated by Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 for the answer 381, respectively, and was completed by the Defendants, respectively. At that time, Nonparty 3, the above grave protection, e.g., e., e., e., d., e., e., e., e., e., d. d. 381.

Therefore, as long as the Defendants cultivated the instant land, paid part of their harvest to the Plaintiff as the completion of an embankment for the said grave, and cut off the said land for the said grave, it should be related to the protection of the said farmland and the said grave protection. Therefore, it should be interpreted that the instant land falls under the “existing soil where no rent is collected from the previous one for the protection of tombstones” under Article 6(1)7 of the Farmland Reform Act, so it should not be admitted as an independent opinion that the said land should be recognized as the upper soil only in the case where the cultivator is the same as the person who cultivated the grave protection and the person who cultivated for the purpose of completing the said works.

Therefore, the original judgment in the above purport is just, and the dissenting opinion is groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)