In its reasoning explanation, the original judgment confirmed the fact that the farmland in this case was a multi-child plant cultivation farmland which was not able to do so at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that the deceased non-party 1 occupied and cultivated the farmland in this case at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and recognized the fact that the farmland was legally distributed at that time, the second instance witness was admitted as evidence.

However, according to the examination protocol of the above non-party 2, the certificate of redemption for the main land of Eul evidence No. 1 was prepared and issued by the witness, and the land of this case does not coincide with the multi plant cultivation ledger and the certificate of redemption price statement at the time, and the above certificate of redemption is made based on the land cadastre. Since the land of multi plant worship, which is sold to the government under the Farmland Reform Act, is distributed to the bidder at the highest auction price according to the auction procedure under Article 7 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and if the bid price is deemed inappropriate, it is decided according to the price different from the above circumstances. Thus, the recognition of the distribution of multi plant cultivation farmland shall be based on the above auction or government records, and it shall not be based on the above auction or government records, and it shall be justified for the above non-party 1 to have issued the certificate of redemption for the above land, and there shall be no further errors in the misapprehension of the court below's decision as to the above facts-finding of the land.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)