(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that found that the farmer's own purchase of his own money was made in title trust to non-farmers holding the registration certificate so far from the time of purchase of the farmland, and there was an error of law in finding facts by misunderstanding the value of evidence

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that held that the purchase of farmland to be cultivated by a farmer and the trust of the title to a person who is not a farmer belongs to this example, and the owner has been holding until now since the purchase of the certificate of the right to the registration, but only the registration of the ownership transfer of the self-owned farmland purchased with his own money is held in title trust to a person who is not a farmer, and that the judgment of the value of evidence has been reversed by erroneous determination of

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased on March 5, 1970), the deceased deceased decedent 1 (the deceased on March 5, 1970), purchased seven parcels of land in the dispute of this case from the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 on the beginning of 1968, and that only the registration of ownership was made in the name of the deceased who is a mother of a house for convenience,

2. However, if a farmer purchases farmland to be cultivated and entrusts the ownership of such farmland to a non-farmer who is not a farmer, and in general, in a case where only the real estate owner’s title is entrusted to another person, documents proving the legal relationship, such as a registration certificate, are held by the title truster, the actual owner. Thus, if a person who is referred to as the title trustee possesses such legal relationship documents, unless there is an explanation that he/she carries such legal relationship documents, it shall not be deemed as impeding the recognition of the title trust relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1750, 1751, Jan. 29, 1985).

See each Decision 89Meu14530 delivered on April 24, 1990

3. According to the records, most of the land in the dispute of this case is farmland (one lot near farmland of 4,474, one hundred and twenty five square meters). The deceased non-party 1, who is the original farmer, cultivated from the purchase after the purchase. Meanwhile, the defendant, as a woman who is the frighter of the above deceased, has been holding a certificate of registration of the right to the land in this case as a woman who is a frighter in Seoul, so long from the purchase, the above deceased, who is not a farmer, has purchased his own money in title trust, because of what is the above deceased's own land, and there is no proper assertion and proof as to the necessity or reason, and therefore, the title trust point of the court below's recognition is doubtful. Further, as to the circumstance that the defendant, a title trustee, had a certificate of registration of the right to the land in this case, which was near the deceased's possession of the right to the land in this case, and there was no room to view that the defendant's right to the land in this case was purchased and treatment of the land without concern.

In addition, the court below acknowledged that the sale process of the land purchase fund of this case was appropriated for the purchase of the land of this case by selling ten parcels, such as the rice paddy-gun ( Address 1 omitted) and one lot, located in ( Address 2 omitted), which were inherited by the above deceased non-party 1 from his father and her father at the beginning of 1968, and the land was appropriated for the purchase of this case. However, according to the records and records of evidence Nos. 9-1 through 16-2 (each certified copy of register) adopted by the court below, the sale time date of each of the above land was not the beginning of 1968 to April 197, 196, and in particular, the above ( Address 2 omitted) 1,109 were larger than that of this case, and it is hard to accept that the land of this case was transferred to non-party 4 on December 27, 1968.

4. Ultimately, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of law by misunderstanding the fact-finding based on the determination of the value of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for appeal assigning this error has merit

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)