Whether the head of the Gu, the Mayor of Eup/Myeon, or Eup/Myeon may cancel the distribution of farmland to a person other than a farm;

(a) The allocation of farmland to a person who is not a farmer does not automatically become void, and the farmland distribution authorities (the head of the Gu, the head of the Si, or the head of the Eup/Myeon) also have no authority to revoke the distribution disposition after it becomes final and conclusive as there is no appeal under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of this Act

(b) If the person who received the distribution of farmland has completed the reimbursement, it shall be presumed that the distribution has taken the procedure under this Article.

Articles 3, 11, and 16-2 of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 32(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Acceptance of leap

Korea

Park Young-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 63Na613 delivered on April 30, 1964, Seoul High Court Decision 63Na613 delivered on July 30, 1964

Each of the appeals is dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the defendant's appeal is assessed against the defendant.

Any part arising from the appeal by a party intervenor shall be borne by the party intervenor.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer and the first ground of appeal by the representative of the party intervenor are examined.

However, according to the original judgment, the court below held that the plaintiff's farmland distribution as the plaintiff's farm is valid and that the plaintiff's farmland distribution as the plaintiff's farm is not the plaintiff's farm but the plaintiff's house cultivation is not the plaintiff's farm but the plaintiff's farmland distribution against the plaintiff's farm is in violation of Article 3 and Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as an inevitable invalidation even if the farmland distribution against the plaintiff violates Article 3 and Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, and even if there is no objection as to the above distribution disposition as to the farmland distribution disposition, it is not authorized to revoke the plaintiff's farmland distribution as a matter of course, and even if it is defective farmland distribution disposition against the non-farmer, the head of the Si/Gu or Eup/Myeon does not have the right to revoke it, and therefore, even if it does not seem to be invalid as a matter of course, the decision of the court below that the farmland distribution against the plaintiff does not have the right to revoke it as a matter of course, and it cannot be accepted by a misunderstanding or independent opinion.

The dissenting opinion argues that the right of farmland distribution itself is delegated to the head of the Gu or Eup/Myeon pursuant to Article 32 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, and even if the right of farmland distribution is delegated to the head of the Gu, etc. pursuant to Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, since the owner of the purchase and distribution of farmland in the Farmland Reform Act is the government, all of the rights of farmland distribution are delegated to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry as a matter of principle, unless there is a special delegation. Therefore, the right of farmland distribution is delegated to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 and the grounds of appeal No. 2 of this Decree are examined.

However, it cannot be found that the determination of evidence and the fact-finding belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and it is illegal considering the contents of the fact-finding process of the court below as well as the fact-finding process of the court below's fact-finding, and it is presumed that the plaintiff has completed the required repayment after receiving the farmland distribution. Rather, it is presumed that the procedure under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act is followed in the distribution of the above farmland, and there is no counter-proof and there is no proof to do so, and it cannot be viewed that the part of the evidence No. 3-2 among the statement No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 3-2 of the farmland requirements is "Copi's name, who is not the cultivator," and it cannot be viewed that the farmer of the farmland requirements is "Copi's name," and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff is an individual, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff cannot be viewed that the comprehensive public notice cannot be viewed as a distribution agent of the above facts.

For the above reasons, each appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges, excluding the Magdong judge of the Supreme Court.

The dissenting opinion of the judge of the Supreme Court is as follows.

Since the authority to distribute farmland purchased by the Government to farmers under Article 11 of the Farmland Reclamation Act is delegated to the head of Si/Gu or Eup/Myeon who is a government agency under Article 32 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of Si/Gu or Eup/Myeon who is a government agency under Article 5 (2) of the same Act shall be deemed to be entrusted with the authority to distribute farmland to farmers under Article 32 (2) of the same Act. Accordingly, the head of Si/Gu or Eup/Myeon shall prepare a daily table of farmland for 10 days in Si/Gu or Eup/Myeon where the farmland is located based on the land survey and make it possible to cancel the registration of ownership transfer within 30 days in the name of the head of Si/Gu or Eup/Myeon where the farmland is located and there is no objection to the Committee at this time after the expiration of this period. Accordingly, it is clear that the head of Gu has the authority to distribute farmland to farmers purchased by the Government to farmers under Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall not participate in the distribution of farmland Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Gyeong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge) Dog-Gyeong-Gyeong-do and Kim Jong-dong, Kim & Han-kak, Hong-kak, Kim Jong-won, Man-man, Mag-ri,