1. According to the provisions of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Distribution Farmland Ownership (Act No. 613, May 5, 1961) and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 79, May 25, 1961), the following facts can be revealed: (a) the head of the Gu, the head of the Si/Eup/Myeon, or the head of the Eup/Myeon, who has followed the right to the distributed farmland, investigates the completion of redemption and the actual owner; and (b) verify the actual owner; and (c) issue a certificate to prove the actual owner in accordance with the attached Table 5 of the above Enforcement Rule to the effect that the certificate of cause under the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Distribution Farmland Ownership is identical to the certificate of repayment delivered to farmers who were distributed under Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act; (d) it is meaningful that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry has affixed the official seal to prove the actual owner; and (e) it is a separate certificate from the official seal written or issued by the head of the above Act.

On the records, the official seal of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry on the document No. 1, which served as the cause for the registration of transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures, which was made in the name of the Defendants, the deceased non-party 1, the decedent of the Defendants, has been printed in a color different from the official seal of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry used at that time. In addition, it is recognized that there is a partial difference from the official seal of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, which was used at that time. However, in this case where no material can be found to prove the fact that the substantial owner of the land of this case is forged or affixed with the official seal of the Sriju-gun, which was affixed with the proof that he was the deceased non-party 1, or the seal affixed by the person without authority, it is difficult to view that the above evidence No. 1 was forged. 1. Thus, the court below's decision that did not recognize that the above evidence No. 1 was forged is insufficient at the time of its reasoning.

In relation to this point, the argument that there is an error in violation of the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court below is without merit.

2. In light of the records, the court below, based on macro evidence, stated that the deceased non-party 1 purchased the land of this case from the deceased non-party 2 (the plaintiff's decedent), who is the distribution of the land of this case, in the repayment ledger and repayment ledger of the land of this case. On the farmland list, the above deceased non-party 1 was indicated as the farmer. The above deceased non-party 1 cultivated the land of this case from about 35 years to December 13, 1984. The above deceased non-party 2 was living in the land of this case until the death of March 31, 1985, and was living in the 3,4 km away from the land of this case and did not raise any objection against it, it is just and it is not reasonable to find that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above non-party 1.

3. As above, the above evidence Nos. 1 cannot be deemed forged or false, and otherwise there is no assertion or evidence as to the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership in the above non-party 1 was not made lawfully in accordance with the Act on Special Measures, so the presumption of transfer of ownership cannot be deemed to have been invalidated. The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reversal of the presumption of transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures, or in the misapprehension of legal reasoning as to the reversal of the presumption of transfer of ownership under the above Act,

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 Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)