Authority to cancel the distribution of farmland shall be limited to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and shall not be the head of Si/Eup/Myeon.

In principle, unless there is a special delegation of authority on farmland reform, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, who is the competent Minister, so the authority on farmland distribution itself has been delegated to the head of the Si/Gu or the head of the Eup/Myeon pursuant to Article 32 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, and the revocation authority can not be deemed delegated to the head of the Myeon immediately.

Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1353 Decided September 30, 1968

Korea

Defendant 1 and three others

Jeonju District Court of First Instance (67A893) Gunsan Branch Court of the District Court of First Instance

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Defendant 2: (a) on April 2, 1966, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the decision of permission of auction as to the land listed in attached Form 1 to Defendant 3; (b) on February 25, 1964, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer due to the completion of repayment as to the land listed in attached Form 1’s attached Table 1’s attached Table 1’s attached Table 1’s attached Table 1’s attached Table 1’s attached Table 1’s attached Table 1’s attached Table 1’s attached registration; (c) on January 26, 1965, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to the land listed in attached Table 2’s attached Table 1’s attached Table 2’s attached list’s attached registration to Defendant 3; and (d) on February 28, 1965’s attached registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration to the Plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants and the declaration of provisional execution on the part of delivery.

The summary of the cause of this claim is that each piece of land purchased under Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act and entered in the list No. 1 among the lands listed in the list No. 2 to Nonparty 1, 1018 was distributed to Nonparty 2, and that Nonparty 3 was distributed to Nonparty 1, 102-2, respectively, on March 1958, to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 purchased and delivered each piece of land to Defendant 1 before the full payment of the purchase price of the above land was in violation of Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act, and the ownership transfer registration No. 166 of the former Enforcement Decree of the District Court No. 197, Feb. 25, 1964, which was acquired by Defendant 1 to the Director of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on the premise that the ownership transfer registration of Defendant 1 was invalid on the ground that the ownership transfer registration of Defendant 2 cannot be acquired on the ground that the ownership transfer registration of Defendant 1 was cancelled on the ground that it was in violation of Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, the claim of the principal lawsuit on the premise of the existence of legitimate revocation is without merit because there is no need to decide on the remainder of the claims. Therefore, the appeal against the original judgment, which is the purport above, is without merit, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and is so decided as per Disposition

[Attachment List]

Judges Kim Yong-dae (Presiding Judge)