Methods of Objection concerning Farmland Reformed Matters

An interested party who has an objection to a matter concerning farmland reform shall be excluded from the subject matter of general administrative litigation because the purpose of remedy to seek correction is especially stipulated, regardless of whether a request for reconsideration or appeal is filed with the farmland committee at each level in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Farmland Reform Act, or by filing a general lawsuit with the competent court at the seat of the farmland in accordance with Article 24 of the same

Article 24 of the Farmland Reform Act (Law No. 108)

Plaintiff

The farmland committee for Jung-Eup;

This case shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On April 19, 4285, the Plaintiff’s legal representative sought a decision of farmland distribution through an auction to the Defendant on the lower day of the entry in the separate sheet, which is a multi-vegetable plant cultivation farmland, to revoke the difference. Litigation costs are to be borne by the Defendant. The lower day of the entry in the separate sheet, which is the cause of the claim, was originally owned by the Plaintiff, and was excluded from the distribution of general farmland as multi-vegetable plant cultivation land at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, while the lower day of the entry in the separate sheet was originally owned by the Plaintiff, but was distributed by a bid auction

However, on May 10, 4285, the defendant prepared a brief document as to the distribution of farmland by auction as of April 19 of the same year by the non-party, etc. entered in the list without a clear individual notice on the farmland as of May 10, 4285.

Therefore, the plaintiff was unable to exercise his right as a prop to participate in the bid auction on the farmland in question due to the defendant's unlawful act. The defendant raised an objection to the defendant on October 24, 4287, and the defendant rejected the plaintiff's objection on November 6, 4287, and the plaintiff again filed an appeal against the plaintiff's objection to the farmland committee in Jeollabuk-do on November 29 of the same year, but the plaintiff rejected the appeal against the plaintiff's objection on January 29 of the same year. However, the Do farmland committee rejected the appeal against the plaintiff's objection even on January 18, 4289.

Therefore, in order to seek the cancellation of the decision on distribution of farmland by auction, which is an illegal act by the defendant, the plaintiff makes a statement underground to the main claim.

According to the response of several copies of June 1, 4289, which is the date of the oral argument, the defendant had not been opened at 9:00 am on June 5, 4289, which is the date of this case's oral argument, the defendant sought a ruling dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff's answer is the plaintiff's original possession of multiple plant cultivation land, the attached list of the plaintiff's main facts is a multi-year plant cultivation land, while the farmland is excluded from the general farmland distribution, but it is decided to distribute the farmland by bidding, as the plaintiff's main place, on April 19, 4285, and there was no objection, new rejection, appeal, and rejection of the appeal, as argued by the plaintiff's president, and the other facts are denied, and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry may not make a public announcement of the plaintiff's new auction as the plaintiff's new auction as the 10th 19th 220 am Y, which is the 19th am 3th Y.

As the plaintiff's main case is seeking correction of illegal disposition against the defendant's farmland reform, the plaintiff's main case is not necessary to review the main case as it is not an administrative litigation matter but an administrative litigation matter. The plaintiff's main case is to dismiss the case as it is not an administrative litigation matter. The plaintiff's main case is to seek correction of the illegal disposition against the defendant's farmland reform, and the interested person who has an objection to the matter against the wrong farmland reform is to file a complaint against the farmland committee at each level according to the procedure prescribed in the Farmland Reform Act, or as the special purpose of remedy is to file a general lawsuit with the competent court in the location of the farmland under Article 24 of the same Act and to seek correction thereof, it is to be excluded from the object of general administrative litigation. It is decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Choi Ma-ho (Presiding Judge)