The validity of a case where farmland on a grave under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act is distributed to a third party under the same Act.

The disposition that distributes the consolation soil under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act to a third party is null and void a year.

Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act

Kim Jong- fishery

Park Jae-in

The Red Support in the First Instance, the Second Instance Seoul High Court Decision 64Na465 delivered on October 16, 1964

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

In its decision, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land was cultivated by the defendant, who was the plaintiff's consolation at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and was cultivated by the defendant, who is the protection of the grave, but there was no objection or request for reconsideration when the land was distributed to the defendant, so the distribution of farmland to the defendant against the land is finalized. Therefore, the plaintiff could not claim for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant on the ground that the land was a previous land.

However, according to Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act, farmland within two parcels per grave shall not be purchased by the Farmland Reform Act for the purpose of protecting graves at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. If the land in this case is the above-mentioned part, such as the decision of the court below, the land in this case must be naturally excluded from the purchase object of the government. Therefore, even if the government received a distribution of the non-purchaseed farmland, the farmland distribution disposition should be null and void.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the authority to transfer a red net holiday.