Farmland which a person who has been deprived of without permission by impeding the self-defense of a prop, and farmland of a person who does not do so under the Farmland Reform Act.

Farmland which does not become self-sufficient due to the deprivation of the right to cultivate a prop shall not be included in the farmland of a person who is not a self-employed person to be purchased by the Government.

Article 5 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 190Da1109 Decided March 29, 1962

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeju District Court Decision 66Na25 delivered on January 30, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s ground of appeal.

(1) As to the first ground for appeal, the lower court, based on relevant evidence, recognized “the fact that, while the real estate was cultivated by the Defendant, the Plaintiff infringed the Defendant’s right to cultivate against the Defendant’s will in 1947, by force against the Defendant’s intention, and has cultivated it by illegally occupying it until now.” Examining the process of evidence collection in accordance with the record, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law that adopted evidence due to a violation of the empirical rule, as stated in the arguments.

(2) As to the second ground of appeal, it is reasonable to view that the farmland of a person who is not a self-employed person to purchase the farmland under the Farmland Reform Act does not include farmland in accordance with the farmland that the person who is forced to interfere with the self-defluence of the prop and the person who has been cultivated without permission. (Supreme Court Decision 4294Da109 delivered on March 29, 1962) As seen above, since the farmland in this case was prevented the plaintiff from self-confising the defendant's right to cultivate before the farmland Reform Act enters into force, it is difficult to view that such farmland is farmland that can be distributed under the Farmland Reform Act. The decision of the Supreme Court is not appropriate. The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Yang Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)