(a) Right to use and profit from land and distribution of farmland;

B. Alteration of the previous precedents and establishment of a board

A lawsuit for a retrial may be brought against a final judgment rendered in violation of Article 7(1)3 of the former Court Organization Act (Law No. 1496, Dec. 13, 196). If the Plaintiff acquired the right to use and benefit from the land from the Defendant who acquired the right to use and benefit from the land in accordance with the land substitution plan and received a distribution of the land in this case from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff would acquire the right to cultivate the land in this case. Upon completion of the reimbursement, the Plaintiff would acquire the right to cultivate the land in this case. Upon completion of the reimbursement, the Plaintiff’s alteration of the previous opinion in the Supreme Court Decision 63Da14 Decided February 28, 1963, the Plaintiff did not make a decision at a collegiate body of at least two-thirds of all the judges of the Supreme Court in this case, and only four Supreme Court judges of the Republic of Korea were involved in

Court Organization Act Article 7(1)3, Article 422(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da14 Decided February 28, 1963

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Defendant (Re-Defendant)

Supreme Court

The retrial lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs incurred in a retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Judgment on the grounds for the petition for retrial by the Plaintiff (Appellant for Retrial)

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below which is the object of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff 1 cultivated the right of cultivation from the above non-party 1 around February 2, 1949, although the plaintiff was lawfully distributed around February 3, 1950, he denied the farmland distribution to the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff is entitled to use the previous land, which is the owner of the previous land, and the defendant is not entitled to use the profit-making right or profit-making right of the land, and the plaintiff is not entitled to use the profit-making right of the plaintiff's land, since the plaintiff's right to use and profit-making right of the land is not allowed, unless there are special circumstances, since the plaintiff's right to use and profit-making right of the land is not allowed.

However, if the plaintiff acquired the right to use and benefit from the land of this case from the defendant who acquired the right to use and benefit from the land of this case in accordance with a land substitution plan and was distributed the land of this case, the plaintiff acquired the right to cultivate the land of this case, and upon completion of redemption, the plaintiff is the opinion of this case 63Da14 decided February 28, 1963, and according to the records, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was distributed the right to use and benefit from the land of this case by cultivating the right to use and benefit from the land of this case in accordance with the land substitution plan. Thus, the final judgment of this case is a change of the previous opinion of this part, and in this case, it falls under Article 7 (1) 3 of the Court Organization Act, and thus, it constitutes two-thirds or more of the judges of the Supreme Court, despite the fact that only four judges of the Supreme Court are involved, the final judgment of this case does not constitute a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) and (1) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff's agent are examined. According to the reasoning of the original judgment, in relation to the distribution of farmland, procedures under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act are required, and the original judgment is based on his own medical evidence, and the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Committee on Farmland with the answer of about 88 square meters (as a result of the record, it can be seen that the defendant's house is the site in reality), which is the previous land for the land to be reserved land, and distributed to the plaintiff. However, on the premise that the fact that the land was distributed to the plaintiff in this case itself cannot be acknowledged through the prescribed procedure, the plaintiff's claim seeking distribution of the land is dismissed, and therefore the judgment cannot be deemed as a lack of reasons for the decision, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, according to the testimony of Non-Party 2 by the witness who adopted the original judgment, it is identical to the theory that the land in this case can be peeped into farmland at the time when the Farmland Reform Act enters into force, but according to the testimony of the witness, the plaintiff did not have been allocated the land in this case, and even according to the witness Gap's evidence No. 6 (farmland List) 7 (Redemption Book), it cannot be deemed that there was a distribution procedure in the plaintiff's future with regard to the land in this case, such as the opinion, and it cannot be deemed that there was a lawsuit, and the original judgment rejected that the testimony of Non-Party 3, as stated in the evidence No. 12, and the testimony of Non-Party 1, as stated in the evidence No. 12, cannot be deemed to be unlawful as in the theory of lawsuit, and it is insufficient to conclude that there was a distribution procedure to the plaintiff with regard to the land in this case, such as the theory, and therefore, it is not sufficient to conclude that there was a distribution procedure to the plaintiff.

Therefore, even though the original judgment was not explicitly stated in the lawsuit argument that the plaintiff acquired the right of cultivation from the non-party 1 who cultivated by the plaintiff with the right of cultivation on the land of this case from the defendant, it cannot be said that there was a distribution procedure to the plaintiff on the land of this case, so long as the original judgment was justified, the judgment cannot be said to have any effect.

Therefore, all arguments are groundless.

If so, even if there is an error as seen above in the final judgment and the final judgment is justified, the conclusion of the final judgment is justifiable, so the final judgment of this case shall not be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-dong, Kim Jong-chul, Kim Ho-won, Liven, Liven, Liven, Liven, Liven,