(b) If a farmland distributor has received a reimbursement certificate, the farmland distribution shall be presumed to have been made through legitimate procedures.

(b) If the farmland distributor has completed the prescribed repayment and received the repayment certificate, it shall be presumed that the farmland distribution was made in accordance with the procedure of this Article.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the part (b) in the annexed drawing was 261 square meters, and recognized the plaintiff's main claim among the reasons other than the above, and cited it as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. It is clear that the object of the judgment of the court of first instance or the object of the judgment of the court below is the same area as that of the plaintiff's main claim, and it is not necessary to determine the above argument in the case where the plaintiff's main claim is not accepted against the defendant 1 among the cases involving non-farmer's main claim, and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court below is also omitted with the above purport. Since the court below stated that the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited it, is just in the judgment of

2. A person who has an objection to the distribution of farmland purchased from the State pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall raise an objection to the distribution of farmland within the period as stipulated in Article 32 of the same Act, and if there is no objection, the farmland shall be decided as the distribution farmland unless there is a separate reason. Even if there is a distribution disposition against a person who does not actually cultivate at the time of the distribution of farmland, unless there is a reasonable ground for invalidity, the distribution disposition against a person who does not actually cultivate the farmland shall be effective until such disposition is revoked by legitimate objection. If a person who received a farmland distribution completes a prescribed repayment and receives a redemption certificate, it shall be presumed to have received the procedure as stipulated in Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da830,831, Dec. 14, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 9Da16831, Oct. 10, 196).

Judgment on the second ground of appeal by such agent;

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the part of the plaintiff's preliminary claimant's acquisition of ownership since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's prior possession of the real estate was an owner of the real estate which was originally owned by the State of Cultural Heritage with the permission to cultivate the land, and that the owner paid the land usage fee to the State of Cultural Heritage Management, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the owner's prior possession of the real estate was an owner of the real estate, and that there was an act of confession that can convert the owner's possession into the owner's independent possession. The court below did not agree with the examination of the selected evidence, and it did not err in the misconception of facts contrary to the rules of evidence, and it should be presumed that the owner's intention to occupy the real estate continues to be inherited from the beginning of the possession with the plaintiff's prior possession, and even if the land was purchased at the same time with the permission to occupy the State under the Farmland Reform Act and there is no evidence to prove that there was no change in the owner's right to possess the real estate as evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)