According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below acknowledged that the real estate in this case (farmland) in the annexed Forms 3 through 7 in the original judgment was unregistered real estate owned by the plaintiff among the real estate in this case and the real estate in the plaintiff's first and second real estate purchased from the non-party on November 20, 1930, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on each day before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, each of the above farmland was nominally owned by the defendant's father and Do governor before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the above fleet died in the order of 1948 and 1959, and that the registration of inheritance was completed in the name of the defendant on each of the above real estate at the plaintiff's expense, and that on October 10, 1986, the defendant notified the cancellation of the title trust as above, and that each of the above farmland was not distributed to the government under Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, and that no farmland was purchased or promulgated by the plaintiff 13 in this case's farmland reform procedure.

However, Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects in the reasoning of the court below applies only to the farmland acquired by the government pursuant to Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, and where there was a trust with another person's name on the register before June 21, 1949 when the Farmland Reform Act was enforced on or before June 21, 1949, (a) the truster is unable to cultivate the farmland directly as the plaintiff of this case, and (b) the truster is legally cultivated by a third party who is not the trustee, or (b) the truster is legally cultivated by a third party who is not the trustee and a third party who is not the trustee, without any need to go through any other action of the State in accordance with the promulgation and implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, and (c) the truster is naturally purchased from the State pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act, or if the farmland was cultivated by the trustee as his own land due to the enforcement of the same Act, the truster cannot claim the return of the farmland, and therefore, the truster cannot claim the return of the farmland under Article 17 of the same Act.

However, the court below only confirmed the existence of title trust prior to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act with respect to the farmland in this case, and did not confirm who had been the cultivator at the time of the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act. However, it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on farmland Reform Act and the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform, unless the reason why the farmland in this case was not distributed to the present, or incomplete deliberation and determination as stated in its reasoning is not sufficient.

Therefore, in this regard, the original judgment is clear that it influenced the judgment in violation of the above legal principles and criticizes this point, and it cannot be exempted from reversal without going through the judgment on the remaining points of issue. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who are remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)