B. Whether registration as a requisite for setting up against the acquisition of farmland ownership by the State under the Farmland Reform Act is necessary (negative)

(b) Farmland except as provided in Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act shall be purchased at the same time as the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act and acquire ownership by the Government, and the acquisition of ownership by the State shall not require a registration as a requisite for setting up against the original purchaser.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant and the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Republic of Korea, which was the basis of the registration in the name of the plaintiff, are invalid even if the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is in accord with the substantive legal relationship, unless the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the plaintiff was completed where the overlapping registration of ownership in the name of the registered titleholder has been completed differently with the registered titleholder with respect to the same real estate, and that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant, which was the basis of the registration in the name of the plaintiff, is not sufficient to recognize it solely by the statement in subparagraph 7-

The above decision of the court below on the validity of duplicate registration is justified as a result of the party members' precedents (Law No. 87∑2961, 87Da453, Nov. 27, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 89∑26113, Dec. 26, 1990). However, it is hard to accept the judgment below that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant, a prior registration, cannot be deemed as a registration of invalidity of cause.

The evidence No. 7-1, No. 7-2 appears to be the farmland repayment register for the land of this case. This document is the fact that the former owner of the land is the defendant's deceased father, and the distribution of the above land is the non-party Kim Hong-si, and according to the statement of the copy of the register of the evidence No. 4 of this case, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Republic of Korea was made on May 21, 1956, and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer was made under Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act. The land of this case in this case was originally owned by the non-party Song-chul, the defendant's father, and was purchased by the government pursuant to Article 5-2 of the Farmland Reform Act as non-party 31 of the same Act as of June 21, 1949, and was promulgated and enforced, it is not difficult to see that it was distributed to the above Kim Hong-dong under Article 11 of the same Act.

In addition, farmland except as provided in Article 6 of the State-owned or Farmland Reform Act is naturally purchased at the same time as the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act and acquired its ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 4291Sang531,532, Oct. 30, 1958; Supreme Court Decision 4291Sang531,532, Jul. 16, 1959). The acquisition of ownership by the State is an original acquisition and does not require registration as a requisite for setting up against the original acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 4292Sang92, Aug. 18, 1960). If the land of this case was purchased at the time of the original acquisition of ownership by the Government, at the same time as the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, it shall be deemed that the registration of preservation of ownership under the Defendant’s name, which was completed on May 31, 1951, shall be deemed to be the registration of invalidation of the cause.

Therefore, the court below should have judged whether the land in this case was owned by the state at the same time as the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, and the completion of repayment thereafter, by examining Gap evidence Nos. 7-1 and 2, etc., and determined that there was no evidence as seen earlier, even though it was judged whether the above registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name was invalid or not. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Farmland Reform Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Farmland Reform Act. The grounds for the argument are as follows.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)