The validity of the act of proving the office with the location of the location under Article 192 of the Farmland Reform Act issued again for the same object

The proof by the seat office under this Act is a public act of proving, as a matter of course, the existence of a fact consistent with the intention of this Act, which seeks to appropriately distribute farmland to farmers, and as long as the contents of the certification are consistent with the facts, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law in the act of certification on the ground that it was about the same farmland as Gap and Eul. The act of revocation solely for the reason that the act of revocation is different from the ordinary area excess, etc. under this Act, so long as the act of revocation is not converted to a legitimate act of revocation, the above certification shall not be deemed to be null and void.

Article 16(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Kim Ho-ho

Error, etc. and one other

Cheongju District Court Decision 60Do874 decided August 4, 1961

The original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's agent are as shown in the attached Table.

The proof of the office at the seat prescribed in the Farmland Reform Act is an official act of proving the existence of a fact consistent with the intention of the Farmland Reform Act, which properly distributes farmland to farmers, and the contents of the certification are consistent with the facts, and it cannot be deemed that there was an unlawful act of certification on the same farmland as long as it is consistent with the facts, and it cannot be viewed that there was an unlawful act of certification on the ground that it was committed against the plaintiff, and the act of revocation on the ground that the revocation on the ground that the act of revocation on the ground that the act of revocation on the ground that it is possible to revoke is in excess of the light area prescribed in the same Act, and if it is converted into legitimate act of revocation on the ground that the above act of revocation on the ground that it was converted into legitimate, the above certification on the ground that the revocation on the ground that it was valid, but the original judgment rejected the plaintiff's claim, which affected the conclusion of the original judgment, is reasonable and there is no reason to reverse the original judgment.

Therefore, by applying Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-ho (Presiding Judge)