Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act, in case where one grave is in appearance in combination with the 3rd and the 193rd and the 3rd and the 6 (1) 7th and the same

In a case where a third-class grave is buried together, it may not be regarded as a first-class grave.

Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Defendant (Re-Defendant)

Cheongju District Court Decision 67Na1 delivered on March 21, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant (Re-Appellant) by the Defendant.

It cannot be said that there is an error of violation of the rules of evidence, failure to exhaust all deliberation in the evidence preparation and fact-finding of the original judgment, and the farmland not exceeding two parts of the previous one for the purpose of protecting a grave pursuant to Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act is excluded from the state wholesale under the same Act. According to the original judgment, it is clear that the farmland of 1641 is the farmland for the plaintiff's 1641 grave for the plaintiff's 3 grave, so it does not exceed the two parts of the original judgment. Thus, it is clear that the entire farmland is excluded from the state wholesale. Since the farmland of 1641 grave is nothing more than the two parts of the original judgment for the plaintiff's 3 grave, it shall be deemed that it is a grave of 3rd and it shall not be deemed that the above grave is a grave in the application of Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, there is no error of incomplete deliberation such as the original judgment.

Therefore, all of the arguments are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu