(b) Whether there exists an opposing power against the owner of a temporary cultivation right on reclaimed land (negative)

B. Since the Do Governor's right to cultivate land by temporary designation of reclaimed land is merely the right to cultivate until the distribution becomes final and conclusive, the right to cultivate land may not be vested in the source of possessory right against the landowner (B) on the sole ground that he/she either holds the right to cultivate land, or that he/she applied for registration of a cultivator, if he/she has been legally distributed to a third party.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 transferred the above right to the non-party 2 to the non-party 3 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 4 to the non-party 1, who was in the jurisdiction of the non-party 5, to the non-party 1, as the non-party 2 transferred a certain amount of farmland to be created at the time of completion of the 19 North Korea-gun Gun Do Corporation as compensation for damages and relocation measures for the non-party 1, who was located in the non-party 4, to the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was a citizen of the non-party 1, to the non-party 3, the right to temporarily distribute the land of the non-party 1, who was in the above reclaimed land, to the non-party 4, the non-party 2, as the non-party 3's owner of the above reclaimed land, after acquiring the right to temporarily distribute the above land to the non-party 1, as the non-party 3's witness's evidence and the right to distribute.

2. However, according to the records, the above Gap evidence No. 3 ( farmland distribution certificate) which was rejected by the court below as being insufficient to find facts, the defendant does not dispute the establishment of the documents proving that two parcels of land in this case were farmland distributed to the plaintiff by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do as of June 9, 1980 under the provisions of Article 102 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act and Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, as long as the documents are public documents, so long as the documents are regarded as public documents, the court may dismiss the evidence without any counter-proof without any counter-proof, the above documents can be viewed as being distributed in accordance with our rule of experience, since the Governor of Jeollabuk-do who distributed farmland pursuant to the provisions of Article 102 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act and Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act prove the fact of distribution. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the contents were distributed in accordance with the same unless there is any counter-

However, the court below examined the testimony of the non-party 3 and the result of the verification of documents related to the distribution of farmland by the court below, which the court below considered as a counter-proof of rejecting evidence of the above farmland distribution certificate, first of all, the non-party 3 was a public official in charge of the affairs related to the distribution of farmland including the land in this case from July 25, 1975 to January 30, 1981 as the Governor of Jeollabuk-do and the head of the farmland management fraternity, and the above farmland distribution certificate issued as of June 9, 1980 was legally prepared, but the document was insufficient to the effect that the plaintiff can respond to the related documents, although it is not sufficient to examine the contents, and when examining the documents related to the distribution of farmland, it is recognized that the name of the defendant was registered in the owner of the farmland in this case on the farmland distribution registry, and the process and contents of the issuance of the above farmland distribution certificate that the public official in charge of the farmland distribution affairs was lawfully issued during the period in charge, and it is clear that the contents of the above statement by the plaintiff public official in the above was not easily obtained.

Although the court below should have deliberated on the circumstances in which the above farmland distribution certificate (A No. 3) was issued in the future of the plaintiff and judged whether the above farmland distribution certificate was authentic, the court below rejected the evidence of the above farmland distribution certificate by only the result of the above testimony and the verification of the documents related to farmland distribution without the name, and there is a bruent evidence preparation contrary to the empirical rules.

3. In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that it is not possible for the defendant to seek delivery of the farmland in this case against the defendant since the plaintiff's possession of the farmland in this case against the defendant on behalf of the non-party country in the Republic of Korea is limited to a private economic juristic act and his status is not limited to a claim right, unless there are special circumstances. In addition, even in the case where the plaintiff seeks delivery of the farmland in this case against the defendant on behalf of the non-party country in subrogation of the non-party country, the defendant acquires the right to cultivate the farmland in this case from the non-party 5, and obtained the certification of confirmation, and properly occupied and cultivated the farmland in this case, the above farmland cannot be claimed against the defendant.

However, according to the evidence adopted by the court below, it can be recognized that the defendant purchased temporary cultivation right for the land of this case from Nonparty 5 and then filed an application for the registration of a cultivator with respect to the land of this case with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do. However, since the above temporary cultivation right is apparent to mean the cultivation right until distribution becomes final and conclusive, if it is distributed to the defendant thereafter, the defendant may not be distributed to the plaintiff as a third party. If the plaintiff as a third party has been lawfully distributed to the defendant, the defendant can not be charged with the above temporary cultivation right, or with the reason that the plaintiff either owned the above temporary cultivation right or applied for the registration of a cultivator, which is the owner of the land.

Ultimately, even if the Plaintiff assumed that the farmland of this case was distributed, the lower court’s claim for evacuation subrogated to Nonparty 1 cannot be justified.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case to be tried again is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)