The validity of distribution of farmland to a person who was not a farmer at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act.

In June 21, 1949, when farmland was distributed from spring in 1953 by a person who is not a farmer who cultivated the farmland at the time of the enforcement of this Act, the competent farmland commission's decision to cancel the farmland distribution is justified in light of the provisions of this Article.

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

Sychomama

Mastonia

Seoul High Court Decision 61Na1711, 1712 delivered on June 1, 1962, Seoul High Court Decision 61Na1712 delivered on June 1, 1962

The original judgment shall be reversed and the judgment

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's agent is examined.

According to the original judgment, the court below held that the land of this case is reverted to the Government on June 21, 1959, when the farmland acquired by the Government under the Farmland Reform Act came into force, and therefore, the time when the farmland was distributed to the plaintiff, who is the cultivator, is so far away from the enforcement date of the law, so the distribution cannot be a justifiable ground for the decision of the Seoul Farmland Committee that revoked the distribution, and for other purposes, the decision of the Seoul Farmland Committee that revoked the distribution is contrary to the above provisions of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is accepted on this premise.

However, according to the purport of the plaintiff's oral argument, the plaintiff was distributed on June 21, 1949, which was implemented by the Farmland Reform Act (as of June 21, 1959 in the above decision, it is obvious that the plaintiff was a clerical error in the above decision) and was not a farmer who cultivated the land at the time of the 21 June 1949, but has been cultivated at spring in 1953. Thus, such argument is not a case of distribution order under Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, and it is doubtful that the distribution order against the plaintiff is legitimate because it is not a case of distribution order under Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, without any explanation of other grounds of appeal, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak, Red Mag-Jak, Live-Jak, Live-P