The confirmation of distributed farmland under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act and the confirmation of a farmer of farmland;

It is reasonable to say that the law of this section grants conclusive power on the fact that the farmer entered in the schedule of farmland distributed to each farm will distribute the farmland as set out in the schedule of farmland distributed to each farm household due to the lapse of the sight period.

Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree thereof

Kim Jong-young (Attorney Hah-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jindo (Attorney Woo-ju et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 4293No780 delivered on June 13, 1961

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

First, we examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

According to Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, the head of Si/Gu or Eup/Myeon first determines farmland to be distributed, and the head of Si/Gun/Gu or Eup/Myeon requires that a site investigation according to the farmland sub-committee be made, and, based thereon, be made within the Si/Gu or Eup/Myeon where each farm household is located, and if there is no objection to the farmland sub-committee to the expiration of the ten-day grace period, it shall be determined as distributed farmland. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below clearly stated the purport of the above law, but it is clear that the farmland which is non-colf in this case is a distributed farmland, which is a distributed farmland under Article 32 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, constitutes a distribution of the farmland, and the interested parties who have an objection to the farmland should not be determined by the new decision of the court below to the extent that there is no objection to the farmland distribution under Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, which is the part of the defendant's representative's new farmland distribution period, and it shall not be justified.

다음에 원고 대리인의 상고이유를 본다. 원심이 원고가 이사건의 농지를 지주 이었던 소외 김의강으로 부터 샀다는 점을 증명하기 위하여 제출한 서증인 갑1,4의 2, 11호 각증을 받아 들이지 않은 것은 부당하게 증거를 배척한 것이라 하나 기록에 끼어 있는 이러한 서증들의 기재 내용을 아무리 뜯어 보아도 원고가 증명하려는 사실을 인정할 만한 자료는 될 수 없다고 본다. 다음에 원심이 그 판시에서 분배를 받을 권리만 인정하고 경작권을 인정하지 않은 것은 이유에 모순이 있다하나 원심의 취지는 아직 사실상 분배도 받기 이전인데 홀연히 경작권이 생길수 없다는 것이므로 분배권이 있으면 당연히 경작권이 뒤따른다는 논지도 독단적인 견해이다. 끝으로 논지는 원고가 농지개혁법 시행 전후에 걸처서 계속적으로 경작한 사실을 내세워서 원고에게 경작권이 있음을 주장하고 있으나 원고가 주장하는 경작권이라 함은 어디까지나 법률상의 경작권을 주장하는 것이 분명하고 경작한 사실관계를 주장하는 것이 아닐 것이므로 다만 농지 개혁법의 시행전후에 계속하여 경작한 구체적 사실이 있다는 한가지 사실만으로서는 곧 원고의 법률상 경작권을 이끌어 낼수는 없다 할 것이다.

However, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed by applying Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the costs of the appeal are borne by the Plaintiff.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with the purport mentioned above.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the last leapon interference