The part concerning the counterclaim among the original judgment shall be reversed, and the corresponding part of the case shall be remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

Of the costs of the appeal, the part of the costs of the appeal by the plaintiffs (excluding the classical foundation and the party) shall be borne by the same plaintiffs.

A farmer of land owned by another person shall be liable to prove the fact that he cultivates land owned by another person with due title, and if each evidence cited by the original judgment is comprehensively reviewed in accordance with the records, the facts recognized by the original judgment shall be recognized. Since there is no error of misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence in the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding in the original judgment, there is no room to find that there is any error of misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence in the deliberation of evidence and the fact-finding, which is the whole matters of the original judgment, and

The Defendant Counterclaim’s ground of appeal is examined.

Since there is no evidence to recognize that the original judgment has a legitimate right to cultivate each land in this case to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were illegally cultivated each land in this case, and the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of right to cultivate was rejected, notwithstanding the rejection of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of right to cultivate land, each land (part of siteization) cultivated by the plaintiffs has been classified as forests and fields on the register, but since it had already been farmland at the time of the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, and even until now, it has been farmland, and eventually, each of the above land is deemed farmland at the time when the defendant would not be treated by the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which he belongs, and must be processed in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, the government authorities dismissed the plaintiff's claim for counter-claiming against the defendant (the plaintiff) by judging that it is a disposition by an agency without the authority to issue each land stated in the purport of the claim, including each of the above farmland, under the Act on the Disposal of Property to

However, even though the owner did not intend to use forest land for the purpose of farming, it cannot be deemed that the land is used for the actual cultivation as stipulated in Article 2 of the Farmland Reform Act, although the owner did not have an intention to use it as farmland for the purpose of farming, it cannot be deemed that it is the land used for the actual cultivation as stated in the above Article 2 of the Farmland Reform Act. However, the judgment of the court below did not contain an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act, which affected the conclusion

Therefore, each of the appeals by the plaintiffs (excluding the glusium and the glusium) is dismissed, and the part concerning the counterclaim in the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division. Of the costs of the appeal, the part arising from each of the appeals by the plaintiffs (excluding the glusium and the glusium) is assessed against the same plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro