The validity of the disposition of distributing farmland to the land, the replotting registration of which has been completed by the urban area planning project;

Farmland distribution, which is called farmland after the registration of land substitution according to the urban district plan and the public announcement of the completion of the project, will be null and void a year.

Article 6(1) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 43(2) of the Joseon City Planning Ordinance, Article 26(1) of the Joseon Land Improvement Decree

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 66Na743 delivered on July 29, 1967, Busan High Court Decision 66Na743 delivered on July 29, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

The facts are as follows. In other words, it is true that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. In other words, the neighboring land including 2,712 square meters is located in the Dong-gu, Busan is located in the urban planning zone where the project is commenced with the approval of the project under the order of the project implementation of the Joseon General City at the time of the Busan City as of January 13, 1939, and the Busan City was located in the urban planning zone where the project is commenced. Thus, the above land was released from the Gun on April 20, 1954 except for the distribution of farmland with the approval of the alteration of the purpose of the use of farmland on March 25, 1956. The above land was released from the 29th decision of the court below on March 17, 1956, and the permission of the alteration of purpose of use of the above farmland was revoked from the 5th decision of the court below to the 19th decision on July 14, 1958.

If so, the court below rejected the confession in the court of first instance on the ground that the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 did not have the above distribution of farmland at the court of first instance on July 8, 1959. The above distribution of farmland at the court of first instance on the ground that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 did not have the above distribution of farmland at the court of first instance on the premise that the above confession was contrary to the truth and did not constitute an error, and even if it is assumed that the above confession was not just, and that the statement by the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 stated the date when the farmland distribution was disposed of as the distribution of farmland as above on the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's land distribution was not a legitimate fact-finding of the court below on the premise that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 did not have the right to the above distribution of farmland at the court of first instance on the premise that it did not have the right to the above disposal of farmland at the court below's. The court below's ruling was justified and justified.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal are no longer acceptable or acceptable. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)