Farmland distribution for land, the execution of a urban district planning project, which has been cultivated temporarily, is completed and the authorization thereof is completed until the public announcement thereof is made.

Since farmland actually cultivated at the time of the enforcement of this Act shall be distributed to its cultivator regardless of its land category, the standard for determining whether farmland as referred to in the principle of freedom of light is farmland shall not be determined only as a formal fact such as temporary de facto cultivation or the land category in the public record or the completion of partition adjustment work under the Decree of the City Land Planning, and it shall be determined as a sound average person, by taking full account of various objective facts such as co-production of the land and the surrounding environment of the land.

Articles 1 and 2(1) of the Farmland Reform Act

Sheet No. Round

Republic of Korea 1 other

Seoul High Court Decision 61No617 decided Dec. 6, 1961

The original judgment shall be reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney are as stated in the grounds of appeal.

According to the original judgment on the first ground of appeal, the court below held that the land of this case shall be excluded from the object of farmland distribution even if it had been cultivated temporarily between them, but the legislative purpose of the Farmland Reform Act is to achieve the self-reliance of farmers and the improvement of farmers' lives due to the promotion of agricultural production capacity, balance and development of the national economy by appropriately distributing farmland to farmers, and thus, the court below's decision on August 13, 1946 was completed, and there was a public notice of the above authorization on October 20, 1946, and the substitute land registration was completed on December 15, 1960, and then the execution of the urban planning project is completed, and the land of this case has been completed until the public notice of its authorization was made. As such, the court below's decision on the land of this case shall not be based on the principles of the court below's determination on whether the farmland of this case was actually distributed to the farmers and thus, it shall not be based on the average land category or market value of the previous farmland improvement project.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-man (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-Mag-ri, the Mag-Mag-ri,