The effect of a clerical error in the book concerning the distribution of farmland, if any.

If there is a clerical error in the book concerning the farmland distribution authority, the distribution shall be null and void automatically.

Supreme Court Decision 63Da833 Decided May 19, 1964 Supreme Court Decision 64Da411 Decided September 15, 1964

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Defendant 1 and two others

Jeonju District Court Decision 77Na185 delivered on December 15, 200

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

The judgment of the court below in its reasoning (No. 1 omitted) 200 in the last 342 square meters prior to Defendant 1’s (No. 2 omitted) is the Plaintiff’s 426 square meters prior to Defendant 1’s possession and cultivation (No. 3 omitted). The disposition to distribute the land to Defendant 1 is distributed to the Plaintiff at least 461 square meters prior to Defendant 1’s possession and cultivation, and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff allocated the land to the Plaintiff, and the distribution of the land to Defendant 1 cannot be deemed null and void because it is not revoked.

However, the original judgment recognizes the fact that the plaintiff has continuously cultivated the land from 30 to 100, and it can be recognized as the statement of several witnesses, which the plaintiff's assertion cannot be denied without examining whether the plaintiff has cultivated the land up to 30 times before or after distribution. Thus, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be deemed as either failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or having left for lack of reasoning. In addition, according to the purport of the pleading, the plaintiff's cultivation, distribution, and redemption was completed, it is recognized that the plaintiff's cultivation, distribution, farmland, farmland, ledger, and registry assistant book is asserting the fact that he is tending as at the time of distribution, and it is found that the court below's determination that the distribution of the land did not affect the plaintiff's 6th decision without examining the reasoning of the judgment below as above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da16481, Jun. 4, 200).

Therefore, we decide as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)