(a) The claim for compensation for the farmland affiliated facilities shall be extinguished by the Do of the exclusion period after March 13, 1969 in accordance with Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects;

(b) The provisions of Article 7(2)(a) of the Farmland Reform Act shall not apply to the calculation of the amount of compensation for the facilities under Article 2(2)(a) of the same Act.

The Presidential Decree No. 451 (the provision on the reduction rate of farmland compensation) enacted and promulgated pursuant to Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of this Act pursuant to paragraph (2) of this Article shall not apply to the calculation of the amount of compensation for facilities under paragraph (2) (a) of Article 2 of this Act.

Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for the Organization of Farmland Reform Projects, Article 7(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da2239, 2240 Decided March 31, 1970

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na2994 delivered on March 26, 1970

All appeals by both the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

However, in this case where the plaintiff first filed a claim against the defendant on March 10, 1969 for the amount of KRW 310,000 and damages for delay in civil procedure against the defendant, but the court below revised the purport of the claim by the claim on KRW 1,432,143 and damages for delay in June 17 of the same year, the compensation for the farmland attached facilities like this case is extinguished after March 13 of the same year in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, so it is justifiable to view that the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit was extinguished due to the expiration of the exclusion period, and that the part exceeding the amount of damages for delay in civil procedure with the amount of KRW 310,00,00 and the amount exceeding the amount of damages for delay in civil procedure shall not be employed under the premise that the claim on the extended purport of the claim for damages shall be

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney are examined.

However, with respect to the application for compensation for the farmland attached facilities (which fall under Article 2 (2) (a) of the Farmland Reform Act), the original judgment citing the first instance judgment that calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of the statutory price per tin in the year 1949, when the facilities were purchased to the defendant, as in the instant case where there is no dispute between the parties as to the newly constructed costs of the facilities, 82,504 won excluding construction supervision costs and survey design costs, is justifiable, and since there was no violation of the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the Farmland Reform Act, the argument is groundless.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, in light of the records, Defendant (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) may be aware that the difference between the compensation claimed by the Plaintiff and the compensation claimed by the Plaintiff was caused by filing a lawsuit, so if so, the Plaintiff may affix a seal on the document No. 1 in the original judgment to the effect that the difference was paid by the Defendant and the compensation that the Defendant received the above money in the appellate trial to be received again in the lawsuit, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a violation of the rules of evidence or a misapprehension of legal principles in the original judgment to this effect.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

However, if the court below reviewed the original judgment based on the records, it is legitimate that the plaintiff received the above amount of KRW 587,087 from the defendant as the representative of the non-party's heir, who was his predecessor, in accordance with the result of the plaintiff's personal examination and the purport of the pleading. Therefore, there is no merit in this regard

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

However, there is no argument suggesting that the original judgment that did not apply to the amount of compensation assessed at the market price under Article 7 (1) 3 of the Farmland Reform Act is erroneous in the calculation of the amount of compensation for the farmland under Article 2 (2) (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which was enacted and promulgated pursuant to Article 22 of the same Act pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the same Act, for the farmland compensation under Article 451 of the Presidential Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 451, Mar. 31, 1970; 69Da2239,2240; 70Da50, Mar. 31, 1970; 70Da50, Mar. 31, 1970).

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

However, it is clear by the record that the claimed amount of KRW 310,00 is 30,00,000, so it is not possible to accept the argument on the premise that it is 300,000.

Therefore, all appeals by the Plaintiff and the Defendant are dismissed. Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the Plaintiff’s appeal and the part arising from the Defendant’s appeal are assessed against each of the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)