beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant (defendant) on whether there exists a ground for retrial, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and it is reasonable to view that the evidence used as the grounds for rejecting the claim by the network A in the judgment subject to retrial lost its grounds when the judgment of innocence was rendered final and conclusive. Therefore, in the judgment subject to retrial, the lower court determined that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451 subparag. 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when a criminal judgment
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal by the defendant (hereinafter “the defendant”) in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on grounds for retrial, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,
2. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff on the part of the claim for ownership transfer registration
A. After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and dismissed the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”)’s heir, who was the deceased A’s heir until December 31, 1998, which became three years after the enforcement date of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter “former Farmland Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff could not be subject to the Farmland Reform Act and the Special Assistance Act and the acquisition of ownership under the provisions of the Act became impossible due to the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of transfer due to the completion of the repayment against the Defendant and the Defendant Intervenor on December 31, 1998, which became three years after the enforcement date of the former Farmland Act.
Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s judgment.