(a) The supplementary appellate brief is subsequently filed;

(b) The validity of recognition of the above land after the statutory period prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act.

A. If a mail delivery service provider transferred a notice of acceptance of a written appeal to the Plaintiff’s village and did not transfer it to the Plaintiff due to its loss, the delivery service provider would be allowed to complete the Plaintiff’s procedural acts relating to the submission of the written appeal.

(b) The territory of paragraph 1(7) of this Article shall not be subject to the purchase by the Government, even though it did not obtain the recognition of the above territory within the period prescribed in Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of this Act

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

B. Round

Kim Jung-hee

Daegu District Court Decision 59No612 delivered on March 10, 1960

First of all, I will examine ex officio the completion of the plaintiff's action.

On April 25, 1960, the plaintiff submitted a petition of appeal to the Supreme Court and received the notice of acceptance of the record of the appeal to the plaintiff. However, on July 28, 198, the plaintiff was notified to the plaintiff at his domicile. However, on the other hand, the plaintiff was notified to the plaintiff on July 14:50 of the same year. However, on the other hand, the plaintiff did not receive the notice of transfer and did not interfere with the plaintiff's name. In full view of the witness stand-in, e-mail, e-mail, and e-mail's testimony, the letter of acceptance which the letter of appeal sent to the plaintiff by the letter of assignment to the plaintiff on the face of the official inspection, the letter of appeal was sent to the plaintiff, and the notice was sent to the plaintiff. However, on the other hand, the letter of appeal was presented to the plaintiff on the 29th day on which the letter of appeal was affixed to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's testimony and the reason for the refusal to present the above notice can not be accepted.

Next, it is based on the judgment of the reasons for appeal.

According to the provision of Article 6 (1) 7 of the Substitute Farmland Reform Act, the existing land located within the scope mentioned above is excluded from the purchase by the Government as a matter of course under the Farmland Reform Act, and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that a person who wishes to obtain recognition of the above land shall submit a prescribed application form to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu or the head of the Si/Gun within 20 days from April 28, 1950, which is located within the area of the farmland, but it cannot be interpreted that the above land is subject to purchase by the Government, on the ground that he did not make an application within the said period of time. Thus, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below that the above land within the scope mentioned above is excluded from the purchase by the Government of the above farmland Reform Act, which naturally causes deprivation of the rights granted by the Act, and that the above land shall be excluded from the purchase by the government of the above farmland Reform Act, which is the ground for the cancellation and cancellation of the order of this case, and thus, it cannot be justified.

Justices Hong Ma-won (Presiding Justice)