It can not be called a legal doctrine that is finalized as a distributed farmland because it did not raise an objection within a fixed period, unless it is farmland.

It can not be called a legal doctrine that is finalized as a distributed farmland because it did not raise an objection within a fixed period, unless it is farmland.

Article 22 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and five others

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2475 delivered on June 2, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2475 delivered on July 2, 1970

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

Defendant Kim Dong-jin’s ground of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4

Based on the evidence stated in the original judgment, we cannot agree with the judgment of the original court that the land in question was not farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and it cannot be readily concluded that there was an error in the process of its recognition. Since each evidence, such as the omission of judgment, cannot be deemed to correspond to the fact that the land in question was farmland, and thus, is interpreted as the rejection of the original judgment, it is interpreted as the conclusion of the judgment that rejected the original judgment. Accordingly, in the end, it cannot be adopted as a result of criticism of the original judgment on the determination of evidence and the fact-finding, and the precedents cited in the arguments are appropriate for the original

The issue is either groundless or groundless.

As to ground of appeal No. 5

It can not be adopted merely to assert facts contrary to the original judgment that no farmland was farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and it can not be considered as the legal doctrine finalized as a distributed farmland because it did not raise an objection within a prescribed period, unless farmland was farmland, and the precedents of the theories that are contrary thereto are interpreted as modified, and the Supreme Court Decision 67Da1836 delivered on the grounds that the precedents of the theories that are contrary thereto (1936 delivered on the grounds of clerical error) cannot be the case

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 6 and 7

With respect to the grounds for reversal or important matters without a trial judgment in the lawsuit, it can be recognized by the explanation of the reasoning that the judgment in the original judgment was judged by the trial, and only the assertion of facts inconsistent with the judgment in the original judgment cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

All arguments are 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.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet