According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the 318 square meters (No. 1 omitted) prior to the Gyeonggi Fire-Fighting Forces (No. 318 square meters) alleged that the Plaintiff was a land owned by the Plaintiff, which was allocated pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion was rejected on the ground that the testimony of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 of the first instance trial witness alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence.

However, according to the above 44 table kept in the Eup/Myeon which has jurisdiction over the location of the land of this case, the above land was indicated as being distributed to 531 square meters and (3) 98 square meters. (2) The plaintiff purchased the above 14 square meters and the above 94 square meters and the above 94 square meters and the above 94 square meters were not easily rejected, unless there are special circumstances. (4) The plaintiff's entry of the above 1 square meters in the 94 square meters and the above 94 square meters in the 197 square meters (2 square meters omitted) and the 97 square meters (3 square meters omitted) square meters omitted. (6) The plaintiff was also found to have omitted the previous 4 square meters and 97 square meters (4 square meters omitted). (6) The plaintiff was also found to have omitted the previous 94 square meters and the previous 94 square meters omitted. (6) The part of the 94 square meters and the previous 194 square meters omitted. (3) The above portion of the 1202 square meters omitted.

In addition, the testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of the first instance trial witness is growing the land of this case from the piracy to the present time, and since this is a ground for not clearly disputing the defendant, this part of the testimony shall not be rejected without permission, since it has no credibility.

In addition, according to the evidence No. 6-10 (Report on Dividing Land Partition), the land allocated to the Plaintiff was entered as 318 square meters prior to the subdivision (No. 4 omitted), which was divided into 1231 square meters prior to the end of 1231 square meters prior to the end of 1231 (No. 1 omitted), and the land allocated to the Plaintiff under the evidence No. 6-2 (farmland No. 4 omitted), but according to the records, the records, prior to the above (No. 9 omitted), 1719 square meters prior to the above (No. 4 omitted), 241 square meters prior to 241 square meters and (No. 5 omitted) 1231 square meters prior to (No. 1 omitted) were clearly divided into 318 square meters prior to the end of 318, (No. 679 and 74 square meters) and (No. 2381 square meters prior to the aforementioned farmland division, and thus, the protocol was omitted.

Therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion because the testimony of Gap evidence No. 6-13 and the witness of the first instance court is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion because the plaintiff's assertion is insufficient without examining the question point of the repayment ledger, the land division protocol or the farmland lot number of the farmland distributed by the plaintiff stated in the farmland division protocol or the farmland lot list. Thus, the court below's assertion is reasonable as it constitutes Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings because the plaintiff's assertion was not sufficient or erroneous.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)