Whether Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act applies to the distribution of non-self-owned farmland of Lee Jong-so at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act.

The provisions of Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act apply only to the farmland in the name of the king, which was already state property at the time when the Farmland Reform Act was enforced, so the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act does not apply to the farmland in the name of the king, since the nature of the farmland in the name of the king was different from that of the state property before being transferred to the state property by the old king Property Disposal Act (No. 1950 No. 8, No. 119).

Article 3 of the State Property Act, Article 10 of the Farmland Reform Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Republic of Korea and three others

Attorney Kim Young-ho, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na2169, 2170 decided September 12, 1973

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the land in this case was cultivated by the non-party as state farmland for which ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the government government at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and its repayment was completed, the farmland distribution was not carried out by the Minister of Finance and Economy as stipulated in Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, and its distribution is null and void since the farmland distribution was not carried out in the procedure of distributing state farmland to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. However, since the property in this king name was transferred to state property under the old king Property Disposal Act (No. 119 of April 8, 1950), it is different from that of state property before it was transferred to the state property under the old king Property Reform Act (No. 119 of May 8, 1950), it should be deemed that the farmland reform was carried out in accordance with the purpose of the farmland reform Act, which was enacted by the court below as a matter of course at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, this issue is reasonable to reverse the original judgment without determining the remaining grounds for appeal on the ground of the reasoning.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)