In the case of farmland distribution, if the indication of the land subject to distribution is erroneously entered in the documents required for the distribution, whether it is possible to correct it true.

In the case of farmland distribution, if there is any error in the indication of the land subject to distribution in the documents required for distribution due to the error of the authority's affairs, it is valid to correct the indication as the first place of distribution.

Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two others, Attorneys Go Yong-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Daejeon District Court Decision 73Na31 delivered on May 4, 1973

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that recognized the fact that the land in this case was cultivated by the plaintiff at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act as the non-party's original non-party's non-party's land was purchased and distributed to the plaintiff at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the repayment was completed on February 18, 1961, and the court's error in the office error and other distribution-related documents, such as repayment certificate, etc., was different land, and the land in this case was written in 250 square meters and 172 square meters prior to the large exhibition ( Address 1 omitted) which is a river that is not cultivated by the plaintiff and the river that is not cultivated by the plaintiff, and therefore, the competent Daejeon Mayor recognized the fact that the land in this case was corrected to 123 square meters in the river ( Address 3 omitted) which is the land for which the indication of the above distributed farmland was not cultivated by the plaintiff, and there is no reason to dispute the appeal by the defendant litigation performer and the defendants's attorney

2. In the case of farmland distribution, in case where the clerical error of the authorities made a clerical error in the indication of the land subject to distribution in the documents related to distribution, the correction of the indication is valid as the first allocation of the party members' decision (refer to Supreme Court Decision 66Da1994 delivered on December 23, 196). As seen above, the court below's decision that the correction is valid is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore there is no ground for the appeal by the aforementioned defendants' attorney.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)