Even if a farmland distribution disposition was made before the enforcement of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act, it is legitimate as long as it was confirmed through the procedure under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree.

Even if a farmland distribution disposition was made before the enforcement of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act, it is legitimate as long as it became final and conclusive through the procedures prescribed in this Article.

Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

69Da831 delivered on September 30, 1968

Korea

Defendant 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1336 delivered on July 27, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1336 delivered on July 27, 1967

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Defendant 1 and 2 of the Reasons for Appeal Nos. 1 and 1 and 2 (the foregoing representative Han-do, the reason for the additional appeal of the least leaple and the supplement of the grounds for appeal are all made after the expiration of the period for submission of the Reasons for Appeal).

In accordance with evidence, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which had jurisdiction over the original farmland regardless of whether the original farmland was originally reverted to him. The head of the 3th anniversary of the enactment of the Dongdaemun-gu Farmland Reform Act, 1950. The head of the 3th anniversary of the enactment of the farmland Conservation Act, the head of the 1950. The head of the 3th anniversary of the enactment of the farmland Conservation Act, the head of the 196th anniversary of the enactment of the said Act, prepared a farmland distribution schedule for the nearby farmland including the original farmland, and prepared the farmland distribution schedule by farming household after completion of the investigation into the site based on the order of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and rejected the request for reconsideration under Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act within that period, but the head of the 3th anniversary of the enforcement rules of the said Act, decided that the farmland distribution procedure was not to be implemented for the defendant, and that the farmland distribution procedure was not to be implemented within the 19th anniversary of the promulgation of the above farmland distribution procedure under the Enforcement Rules of the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, the remaining grounds for appeal are not required to be determined, and the original judgment is reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)