Whether the land which is the Gu's real property is subject to distribution under the Farmland Reform Act.

Land under the management of the Gu king's office and the land under the management of the king's office is different in nature from that of the state property, and thus, the land subject to distribution may be distributed to the State pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, and if it is not necessary to take the procedure for transfer under Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea shall be in the order of the outer, red, or scarcity of the litigation performer of the Yellow Musan;

Attorney Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na1718 delivered on October 11, 1974

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff is examined.

With respect to No. 1:

The old king's land, which is the old king's property, is a state-owned property No. 39, Jun. 29, 1908, which was the end of the old 1908 age, and enforced April 8, 1950, which provides that the old king's property disposal law, which was enforced on Apr. 8, 1950, is merely a confirmation of the state-owned property, and that it is not a state-owned property only under the above law, does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal since it was first asserted at the trial. This is because the appeal is an appeal against the appellate court's judgment, so it shall be construed that it is not allowed to examine the matters that had not been the object of the appellate court's judgment as the ground for appeal, and it is not possible to say that the appellate court has the duty of ex officio examination even if it is about legal interpretation issues, and it cannot be said that it is an offence by the final appeal.

For the combination of heading 2 and 3:

According to evidence, the original judgment was farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the Kim Il-il, who was distributed farmland, was not the Dominant of the farmland, so there is no illegality in farmland distribution.In this case, the land was the old king's actual property, which was under the management of the Lee king-si, but was different in nature from that of the state property, and thus, the land subject to distribution is classified into the state according to the Farmland Reform Act, and the state property of this land was not within the state property at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore the land was not within the state property at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was any illegality in the theory of the disposition that determined that

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)