The validity of a lease contract concluded with a prop before and after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act with respect to farmland purchased to the Government;

The farmland which is not self-defilled is purchased from the government at the same time as this Act enters into force, and the prop thereafter has no right of disposal, and there is no right of lease even if it was leased from the prop.

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

Kim Jong-ho (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

An administrator of the absentee white prize (Attorney Kim Nam-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 4294No1088, 1089 decided May 31, 1962

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's agent stated in the annexed appellate brief are examined.

According to the original judgment, the court below held, on the one hand, that the farmland of this case is farmland purchased by the Government pursuant to Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, because it is farmland which does not own a prop at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and recognized the fact on November 7, 1953, after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, that the land of this case, which is farmland of this case, is farmland purchased by the Government, and that it was farmland of this case, which is farmland of this case, was the original farmer of this case, and the plaintiff, who was the farmer of this case, has renounced his right to cultivate and cultivated it from the defendant who was the prop, and

However, the farmland which is not self-filled is purchased from the government simultaneously with the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the prop has no right to dispose of the farmland thereafter, so even if it was leased from the prop, the plaintiff does not have any intention to acquire the right of lease. Therefore, the above decision of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act, and it is reasonable to discuss.

Since the plaintiff's representative did not follow the prescribed procedures under Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, the plaintiff's representative cannot contest that the plaintiff is not a legitimate manager of the farmland in this case.

Domins Domins

In light of the records in the evidence No. 11-1 and the evidence No. 12-2 that can be recognized as the authenticity of the official portion without dispute in the establishment of the defendant's pleading, the defendant is dissatisfied with the disposition of the farmland reform enforcement agency that distributes the orchard pursuant to Article 7 (3) of the Farmland Reform Act and Articles 1 and 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it is obvious that the defendant has raised an objection only because he/she did not have a manager in the orchard and was deprived of possession to a temporary other person, and therefore, it can be deemed that the procedure under Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act has been followed.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-Jak, the highest leapbble leapbbrih