Scope of the successors of the property that can succeed to the farmland inheritance right;

Where a person who has received farmland dies, a person who can inherit the right of inheritance on the farmland shall be limited to the heir of the property, who is a member of the house, and who is a member of the house, and is the owner of a household or a farmer who is the owner of a family living together in the house of the inheritee. Even if the heir of the property under the Civil Act is not a farmer, a person who does not maintain his livelihood by the cultivation of the farmland shall not inherit the right

Article 15 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na1995 delivered on February 8, 1973

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are examined as to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s attorney’s grounds of appeal No. 1.

The court below acknowledged the fact that each real estate in this case where the original real estate was originally reverted to the original state is a forest and field, but its actual state was farmland, and that the government distributed the real estate to Nonparty 1 under the Farmland Reform Act and completed its repayment. Therefore, the director general of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Government Officers treat this real estate as the property devolving upon the general public, not farmland, and the disposition that was not made to Defendant 1 to Defendant 1 on December 15, 1958 is null and void as a matter of course of fact-finding, and there is no ground to view that there was a violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory, due to the legitimate cooking of evidence which was completed the process of fact-finding by the court below, and according to the evidence adopted by the court below, the fact-finding of the court below cannot be said to have been erroneous in its fact-finding as sufficient to pride

In addition, as long as the court below did not specifically decide that the land of this case was legally distributed under the Farmland Reform Act, it cannot be said that there was an error of incomplete deliberation like the theory, on the ground that there was no specific determination of the period of sight of farmland area such as theory, the existence of an objection, or the date of confirmation of distribution.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in case where a person who received farmland distribution dies and succeeds to the farmland, the court below held that, in light of the provisions of the Farmland Reform Act, if a person who is not a farmer but a person who does not maintain his livelihood by the cultivation of the farmland is unable to inherit the right to collect the farmland, and therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the right to collect the farmland is inherited to the heir of the property, who is a member of the house, who is the head of a household or a family living together with a family living together, and who is the head of a household, who is the head of a household or a family living together with the decedent in the house, and who is a member of the house, is a member of the house, the right to receive the farmland of the above case, after deliberation in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remanding the case, eight persons, such as the above non-party 1, who was distributed the land of this case, died on March 5, 1963 and was the co-inheritors 1

The above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is that there is a misunderstanding of legal principles in the original judgment under different opinions from the above theory.

Therefore, all of the arguments are groundless, and are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants as the losing Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)