[소유권이전등기말소][집21(3)민,031]
A farmer under the Farmland Reform Act
Even if it is a minor in terms of terms and conditions, if the ownership of farmland was cultivated and cultivated, it will be a farmer in the Farmland Reform Act.
Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Suwon District Court Decision 72Na562 delivered on June 1, 1973
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the Defendant’s agent’s ground of appeal.
In this paper, the court below found facts in violation of the rules of evidence and found it difficult to reverse the evidence in the incomplete hearing. However, considering the result of the verification of the court of first instance, the court below's evidence Nos. 2,3,4,5,9, and No. 1 and No. 2 as cited by the court below compared with the evidence No. 1, 2, 3 and No. 1, and there is no evidence to find some of the evidences during the trial. However, for example, the evidence No. 3 (Refund) is that the actual owner due to the completion of the reimbursement is the plaintiff, and the certificate No. 13 is ○○. However, according to the family register No. 7, this is a copy of the verification statement No. 7, but this is not a clerical error that the plaintiff stated "△△△△," and it is not a valid fact-finding that the plaintiff's farmland should be found to have been found to have been not a farmland reform. Thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's contents were legitimate.
In the end, all arguments are based on the absence of the grounds of appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)