Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the assertion regarding the land portion of this case 8, 12, and 17, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the land of this case 8, 12, and 17 is farmland and still farmland, on July 1, 1996, when the grace period under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (amended by July 1, 1995; hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) expires, and thus, it is reasonable to view it as farmland.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to farmland judgment standards, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or exceeding the bounds of the principle

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland and legal disability, the title truster could not acquire ownership of the pertinent real estate if the title truster had a legal disability in transferring the relevant real estate under his/her name until the grace period under the Real Estate Real Name Act expires, even though the title truster entered into a contract of title trust with the owner who was not aware of the fact that the title trustee was a party to the contract and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the trustee, prior to the enforcement of the Real Estate Real Name Act. Therefore, the damage suffered by the title truster due to the invalidation of the said title trust agreement