If farmland is prepared in accordance with Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 14835 of Dec. 22, 1995, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act) with respect to farmland, it shall be presumed that the site investigation under the above provision and the procedure for confirmation of distributed farmland has been completed, barring any special circumstance. Since the repayment ledger under Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree is also a document prepared in order to enter matters necessary for repayment after the completion of the procedure for confirmation of distribution farmland, if certain land is entered in the repayment ledger, it may be presumed that the procedure for confirmation of distribution of farmland has been lawfully completed, but this is only the same in relation to the procedure for distribution of farmland, and even if the above farmland distribution documents are listed as props or persons under actual law, it is not presumed that they have ownership (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da4120, Jan. 14, 1994; 94Da279806, Sept. 15, 2006).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment, and found the plaintiffs' prior to the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) that the land before the division was acquired by succession, and submitted a redemption ledger (Evidence No. 4-1, 2) and a distribution farmland register (Evidence No. 3-1, 2-2) as evidence. However, the above repayment ledger is a document stating the change based on the repayment ledger, and the above distribution farmland register is a document prepared at the end stage of the farmland reform project around 1960, which appears to be by the farmland register, and all of these documents are merely a document prepared for the repayment of the distribution farmland or the completion of the farmland reform project, not by the public account book showing the legal relationship, and therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of substantive rights and rights of the person subject to compensation.

2. As to the probative value of the statement in the repayment ledger and in the distribution farmland register

It is possible in itself to consider the contents of the above-mentioned documents related to farmland distribution as data for fact-finding on the alteration of rights in full together with other circumstances.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, in addition to the above circumstances, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs acquired the land before the division in this case by succession at the time of the farmland reform, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs acquired the land before the division in this case by succession. In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the probative value or the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal, such as errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the rules of evidence, etc., which are related closely to the owner of the land purchased among the account books or documents prepared in the farmland reform process.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)