Han-ro (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Lee Ho-ho et al. (Attorney Han-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 64Da907,1513 decided May 8, 1965

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against Defendant and Lessee.

As to the first ground for appeal by the Defendant-Appellant Counterclaim Plaintiff

According to the purport of the pleading, the plaintiff and the non-party-appellant asserted that the land in this case was not farmland at the time of the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, and that part of the land in this case, at home, could have been recognized as the self-governing orchard of the non-party Kim Jong-chul, even if the orchard, it cannot be recognized as a mere fact finding that the land in this case was not farmland subject to purchase or distribution under the Farmland Reform Act at the time of the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, and it cannot be deemed that the original judgment determined that the land was not farmland at the time of the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, and that it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act, and that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act, and that there was no error in the original judgment in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act, which is not acceptable by the original judgment or the evidence, and therefore, it cannot be adopted because all of the judgment below criticizes the matters of full authority to determine evidence and find facts.

The issue is either groundless or groundless.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

Any counterclaim filed in the appellate court without consent of the other party is illegal because the counterclaim itself is not illegal, so it cannot be deemed unfair that it was dismissed as it is different from the lawsuit of a simple mistake in the competent court.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Judges Yang Sung-gi (Presiding Judge)