There is no room to obtain a permit to change the purpose of use for land already completed by the Urban Planning Corporation before the Farmland Reform Act is implemented.

There is no room to obtain a change in the purpose of use for the land already completed by the Urban Planning Corporation before this Act enters into force.

Article 6 subparagraph 4 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

1.2 Doese et al.

Young General Partnership

Seoul High Court Decision 61Do1502 delivered on August 16, 1962, Seoul High Court Decision 61Do1502 delivered on August 16, 1962

The original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney, the supplementary reasons, and the response by the plaintiff et al. are as stated in the supplementary appellate brief, its supplementary reasons, and the response.

(1) (1) If the evidence indicated in the original judgment in the case of the Reasons for Appeal (O) is examined by the record on the records on the records, the land in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yangyang-dong 172 was divided into 161 and 453 and 279 land in Yangyang-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government and 172, and the land in the above 172 area was changed to 153 and 4279 area in Yangyang-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the land in the part cultivated by the plaintiff Lee Jong-dong, the land in the above 1 drawings attached to the original judgment, and the land in the part cultivated by the plaintiff Lee Dong-ho is the part in the second drawings attached to the original judgment, and the land in the part cultivated by the plaintiff Lee Dong-ho, which was cultivated by the plaintiff Lee Jong-dong, and there is no violation of law by changing the above 28314 and 17137 square meters.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this issue.

(2) According to the evidence Nos. 7 and 8 (Notice of Appeal) which can presume the establishment of the petition by recognizing the authorized parts of the plaintiffs as to the grounds for appeal (the grounds for appeal), the defendant can be acknowledged that there was each decision by the old Farmland Committee and the Farmland Committee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, because the plaintiff's own objection is not unlawful even though the plaintiff's request for the prohibition of the exercise of ownership was changed to the claim for the confirmation of ownership, and even if the plaintiff's request for the confirmation of the right of cultivation was changed to the claim for the confirmation of ownership, it cannot be said that there was a change in the basis of the claim. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

(2) According to the reasoning of appeal (4) and the original judgment as to the ground of appeal, the lower court recognized that the farmland was subject to the change of the purpose of the farmland improvement project in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance No. 172, and that the land was originally owned by the Defendant, and that the land was not subject to the change of the purpose of the farmland improvement project in the 2,187, and that the land was not subject to the change of the purpose of the farmland improvement project in the 172, Pyeong-dong, No. 172, No. 153, Dec. 25, 193, the lower court recognized that the land was not subject to the change of the purpose of the farmland improvement project in the 161, No. 498, Dec. 61, 201, and No. 279, Dec. 31, 2007, the lower court determined that the land was not subject to the change of the farmland improvement project in the 3,19413.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is delivered with the assent of all participating judges, as it is deemed necessary to make a new trial and determination.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-man (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-Mag-ri, the Mag-Mag-ri,