Effect of farmland disposition devolvingd by the chief of a tax office

Farmland devolving upon the State shall be disposed of by the Farmland Reform Act, and if the head of Yeongdeungpo District Tax Office sells the farmland by the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, it is an act of disposal by an administrative agency which has no authority at all, and the defect is grave and obvious and

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 4291No37 delivered on July 2, 1959 (Supreme Court Decision 4748 delivered on November 2, 1959, Supreme Court Decision 1153 delivered on July 2, 195

Plaintiff

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition of cancellation of a contract of sale and purchase of property devolving upon the original and the Defendant concluded on April 3, 1963 with respect to real estate recorded in the attached list as of March 23, 1964 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Although the Defendant sold real estate to the Plaintiff on April 3, 1963 as indicated in the attached list of property belonging to the Plaintiff on the ground that the above sale disposition was null and void on March 23, 1964, there is no dispute between the parties, and considering the contents as stated in Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 5-4, and the witness testimony and the whole purport of oral argument, the real estate belonging to the Plaintiff is merely the land category, and it is actually used for cultivation from August 15 to February 1958, since the land category was used for the above cultivation and it cannot be seen that the Defendant did not sell the above land to the Plaintiff on the ground that the above sale disposition was null and void on the ground that it was no longer effective for the Plaintiff to whom the above sale disposition was made. Thus, the Plaintiff’s sale of the above land cannot be revoked on the ground that it is still invalid for the Plaintiff’s sale of the land under a private contract for the purpose of the Act on the Improvement of Farmland, and thus, it is still invalid.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Do-ju (Presiding Judge)