(a) The burden of proving whether procedures for handing over farmland exist;

(b) Farmland subject to the change of the purpose of use;

1. Since farmland which was a state-owned administrative property at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act cannot be distributed to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act without going through the procedure of transferring the property under Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, the Minister of Finance and Economy has the burden of proving that such transfer had been made.

2. The term "farmland subject to permission for change of the purpose of use as prescribed by the Farmland Reform Act" means farmland subject to purchase other than state-owned or reverted farmland;

Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da797 Decided August 19, 1969 Supreme Court Decision 4293Da854,855 Decided January 11, 1962

Korea

Defendant 1 and five others, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na1927 delivered on April 20, 1979

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court below is just on the premise that the defendants asserted that the above transfer procedure of the Minister of Finance and Economy with respect to the real estate has the burden of proving that farmland, which was state-owned administrative property at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, can not be distributed in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act without the procedure for transferring the property under Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da797 delivered on August 19, 1969). In this regard, the judgment of the court below is justified on the premise that the defendants alleged that the above transfer procedure of the Ministry of Finance and Economy with respect to the real estate was in fact, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence that had the burden of proof against the defendants, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and there is no reason to view that the court below did not have any influence on the purpose of use of the real estate which was state-owned administrative property after its purchase from the owner, and therefore there is no need to review the above change of the purpose of use of the farmland which belongs to the above Supreme Court Decision No. 24.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)