[2] The nature of the state's possession of the farmland purchased by the government under the former Farmland Reform Act (=the State's possession)

[2] In a case where the Government's farmland purchased pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act) is confirmed not to be distributed to farmers, the ownership is returned to the original owner. Therefore, the State's purchase of farmland pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act is intended to distribute it to self-employed farmers, etc., and in a case where non-distribution is determined, it is planned to return it to the original owner from the time of purchase. Thus, the possession of the purchased farmland by the State cannot be deemed as the autonomous possession with the intent to avoid the control of the true owner, and it shall be deemed as the possession by the nature of the title.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below found facts based on the adopted evidence and found facts. The non-party, according to the facts of the judgment, did not distribute the farmland of this case which was originally owned by the plaintiff under the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of December 22, 1994) but did not complete repayment, and returned the farmland of this case to the defendant. Even if the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on January 29, 1969 under his own name, even if he completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the farmland of this case on March 29, 1969, he did not distribute the farmland of this case after the lapse of one year from March 13, 1968, which was the enforcement date of the former Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects ("Special Measures Act"), and therefore, the non-party, the original owner of this case, was returned to the plaintiff at the same time after the expiration of the period. In light of the records, the court below's recognition and the judgment below is justified and there are no errors in violation of law.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In accordance with the former Farmland Reform Act, the government purchased farmland with the condition that the farmland will not be distributed later. Thus, farmland not distributed at the time of enforcement under the Act on Special Measures shall be reverted to the ownership of the original owner, which has become final and conclusive not to distribute simultaneously with the implementation of the Act on Special Measures except farmland to be distributed to farmers registered or confirmed as state-owned under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da41031, Feb. 13, 1996). Even if farmland is registered as state-owned property under Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures, other farmland than farmland distributed pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Act on Special Measures shall be reverted to the original owner upon cancellation of the government’s purchase measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da782, Aug. 14, 191; 201Da857, Aug. 15, 2005).

As such, in a case where the Government's farmland purchased under the former Farmland Reform Act is determined not to be distributed to farmers, the ownership is returned to the original owner. Therefore, the State's purchase of farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act is intended to distribute it to the self-employed farmers, etc., and in a case where non-distribution is decided, it is planned to return it to the original owner from the time of purchase. Thus, the possession of the purchased farmland by the State is not an autonomous possession with the intent to avoid the control of the true owner, and it shall not be deemed as the possession of the owner in the nature of the title. In the same regard, it is reasonable to reject the assertion of prescriptive acquisition on the premise that the court below occupied the real estate in this case as the intention of the owner, and there is no violation

3. On the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's simultaneous performance defense based on the premise that the defendant compensated the plaintiff at the time of purchase and acquisition of the farmland of this case under the former Farmland Reform Act and purchased the farmland of this case at the time of purchase, is justified, and there is no error of law as claimed in the grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)