Whether Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act is applicable to an objection under Article 32 of the same Decree.

For the purpose of Articles 49 and 46 of this Decree, the term “a formal objection” means a formal objection under Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, which means a formal objection under this Article, and its nature differs from that of the formal objection under this Article, and thus, the objection under this Article is not subject to Article 49 of this Decree, since it means a formal objection under this Article before the decision on distribution of farmland becomes final and conclusive.

Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

South Korean Supreme Court Decision 201Na11488

Han-dong and 3 (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 63Na483 delivered on December 4, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 of the Plaintiff’s agent are examined (including the supplementary statement in the grounds of appeal).

However, even if it is based on the whole purport of the plaintiff's argument that set up a soar.

In addition, this case's farmland was distributed on February 1, 1962, and an objection under Article 49 and Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act refers to a request for reconsideration under Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, and a request for reconsideration shall be filed after the farmland distribution disposition is taken in the form of the letter. An objection under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act shall be filed to prevent the objection from being filed before the farmland distribution disposition becomes final and conclusive, and it is different from that of a request for reconsideration under Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act, so the objection under Article 49 of the same Decree shall not be applied.

In addition, it cannot be deemed that farmland was distributed due to the decision on farmland to be distributed by the Seongbuk-gu Farmland Committee or the publication by the head of Seongbuk-gu Office or that the farmland was distributed under the condition of rescission for the objection. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a farmland distribution prior to the promulgation of the Urban Planning Act on January 20, 1962, and only an independent opinion can not be employed.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 (including supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal) are examined.

However, according to the evidence No. 3 of this case, since the land of this case is designated as a residential area under Article 15, Paragraph 3 of Article 2 of the Decree on the Planning of Joseon City and is located within the area where the land of this case has been announced publicly, the above disposal shall be deemed to have been designated and announced as a residential area according to the transitional measures of Article 17, Article 25, Article 4, and Article 7 of the Urban Planning Act. Therefore, since the land of this case is subject to the facility subject to Article 2 Item 2 of the Urban Planning Act under Article 49 of the same Act, the Farmland Reform Act shall not be applied to the land of this case, and there shall be no errors in the original judgment, and it shall not be employed under the premise of the independent interpretation of the Urban Planning Act which is discussed.

Accordingly, according to Articles 400, 395, 384, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, all participating judges are decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu