The supplemental appellate brief is not timely filed, so it is deemed to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief.

1. Examining records;

A. The court of first instance rejected the Defendant’s registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the Defendant was a member of the Do-si Kim Jong-dong Kim Jong-si’s 960-2 forest and 105-2 of the same 960-dong Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si’s 1931 on May 14, 1931. When Nonindicted 1 and his father died, the court of first instance completed the registration of inheritance before the Defendant on October 6, 1972, on the ground that the Defendant’s above 161-dong 952, 938-1, 954-1, 954-dong 91-dong 91, 959, 938-2, 938-2, 146 of the above 97-dong 197, on the ground that it was difficult for the Defendant to acquire the above 3-party’s property from the above 197-party 1’s father’s title trust.

2. However, in examining the records, the above land appears to have been subject to the Farmland Reform Act as at June 21, 1949 when the Farmland Reform Act was enforced (see Supreme Court Decision 249-260, Jun. 27, 195; Supreme Court Decision 249-260, Nov. 13, 1990; 9Da42529, Nov. 13, 1990; 9Da2329, Feb. 25, 192, 199). If the above land was cultivated as farmland as a trustee, and it was not against the intention of Article 11 subparagraph 1 and Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act, the truster cannot file a claim for the return of the land (delivery or transfer of ownership) even if the trust contract was terminated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da42892, Nov. 27, 195; 200Da22923, Feb. 23, 2019).

3. Therefore, the court below should first determine whether the above land was farmland subject to the farmland law at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and if the farmland subject to the Farmland Reform Act was farmland subject to the farmland subject to the farmland reform Act, whether the farmer was the farmer, and whether the defendant was the person in custody of another's property. Even if the defendant comprehensively succeeded to the status of the trustee, in the case of this case where the defendant denies the title trust relationship, even if the defendant was aware of the above title trust relation at the time of disposal, or if he was aware that he was the custodian, it should determine whether the defendant was the criminal intent of embezzlement by examining whether the above title trust relation was known at the time of disposal, or whether the defendant was aware that he had the custodian's status at the time of disposal. Thus, the court below did not reach this point of view and did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles of farmland Reform Act and embezzlement, which affected the deliberation.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)