The nature of litigation as to the disposition taken by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry who rejected a claim for compensation of the facilities of reclaimed land under the Farmland Reform Act.

Any disposition taken by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry who has rejected a request for reward for facilities in reclaimed land pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act shall not be subject to administrative litigation.

Article 7 of the Farmland Reform Act

1.2 Hask Hask and 2 others

Minister of Agriculture and Forestry

Seoul High Court Decision 61Do109 delivered on December 31, 1962

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court below is justified in rejecting the plaintiff's lawsuit to the purport that the lawsuit against the defendant's disposition rejecting the plaintiff's compensation claim under the Farmland Reform Act is not an administrative litigation but a civil litigation, because the plaintiff's claim for compensation of the reclaimed land's land's claim for compensation under the Farmland Reform Act was transferred to the claim for compensation under the Farmland Reform Act, and this claim for compensation is also a system under the Farmland Reform Act related to farmland distribution is not an administrative litigation. The Supreme Court decision (Supreme Court Decision 62Nu18 delivered on May 31, 1962) which points out the grounds for appeal is not an administrative litigation, but an administrative litigation is not an administrative litigation, and the purport of the decision that the above judgment is a civil litigation, under the premise that the purport of the above judgment is judged to be an administrative litigation, and there is no reason to argue that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the nature of administrative litigation in the original judgment on the premise that the purport of the above judgment is an administrative litigation. Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiffs is without merit, and therefore it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating in the defendant's.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-Jap (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-Jak, the maximum Magman Mag-ri