At the time of entry into force of the former Grain Management Act, the government exchange of grain for the same administrative purpose as Article 6 of the Grain Management Act, and paragraphs (3) and (5) of the Addenda to the Farm Grain Management Act.

In the former Grain Management Act (Act No. 97 of February 16, 500), even if there is no provision of prestigious as the current Act, if the government had actually exchanged grain for such administrative purpose, it shall be recognized as valid, and the provisions of the Addenda to the Farm Grain Act (Act No. 97 of February 16, 190) or (5

Article 6 of the Grain Management Act, Paragraph 2 and 5 of the Addenda of the Farm Loan Grain Management Act

Korea

Defendant 1 and five others

Seoul Central District Court Decision 65Na314 delivered on December 9, 1965

The original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff performer are examined.

At the time of entry into force of the former Grain Management Act, part of the grain for which the Government manages under the same Act was lent to the Minister for the purpose of developing agriculture and forestry pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 (2) of the same Act. At the time of entry into force of the former Grain Management Act, the Act was enforced on February 19, 1962, and loans made under the previous provisions of Article 9 (2) of the former Grain Management Act at the same time, and the unclaimed grain was sold to the Minister with the original loan to the farm household. The final judgment of the State as to the unclaimed grain was delivered under paragraph (5) of the same Article, but the pending case was that the head of the Si/Gun automatically succeeded to the grain, but the above provision of Article 6 (2) of the former Grain Management Act was not clearly stated in the opinion of the court below that the above provision was not effective on the grounds that the plaintiff's request for sale of grain for administrative purposes, as stated in the opinion of the court below, and that the above provision of the Food Grain Management Act was not effective.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)