The Farmland Reform Act shall not apply to any land designated as a mixed area under the Decree on the Plan of the Joseon City, unless there are any special circumstances.

With respect to land designated as a mixed area under the Decree on the Market Price of Shipbuilding, this Act shall not apply unless there are other special circumstances, and even if the same Act does not apply to the registry having jurisdiction over the location of the land under the provisions of Article 43 of the Decree on the Market Price of Shipbuilding, which is the previous Acts and subordinate statutes, and Article 24 of the Decree on the Market Price of Shipbuilding, it shall not be deemed that there exists no validity of the designation of a mixed area under the Decree on the Market Price of Shipbuilding.

Article 49 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 2 of the Urban Planning Act, Paragraph 2 of the Addenda to the Urban Planning Act, Article 19 Paragraph 2 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 10 others

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2002 decided April 17, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2002

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

According to the facts established by the court below, the land at issue in this case (the address omitted. 183 square meters) is a mixed area (small factory and housing area) at the time when the implementation of the Ansan Urban Planning was announced on March 12, 1953 (the alteration to a small factory and housing area). If so, as the Urban Planning Act enters into force on January 20, 1962, the designation of a mixed area becomes effective as being designated under Article 17 and Article 2 of the Urban Planning Act (see Articles 17 and 18 of the same Act). Thus, it shall not be deemed that the farmland of this case cannot be registered under Article 9 of the same Act, even if the present situation is farmland of this case, the farmland of this case can not be registered under Article 9 of the same Act, and it shall not be deemed that the farmland of this case cannot be registered under Article 43 of the same Decree, even if the land of this case was mixed with the land of this case, and the land of this case is not registered under the above Decree.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles applying the Farmland Reform Act erroneously, or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to erroneous application of the Decree on the Factory Market Planning and Urban Planning Act. Thus, this appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)