The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The above ground of appeal No. 2 is erroneous in finding facts without based on evidence. In other words, in 1952, the non-party, who sold the land in question to the plaintiff who was donated, requested the purchase of the land in question with the purchase price of the land in question, and the plaintiff was found to have entrusted the non-party with the right to dispose of the land in question. However, if there is no evidence to acknowledge this fact in detail, the non-party among the statements by the defendant et al. at the time of the first instance court did not indicate the management of the land in question as the plaintiff's mother as the plaintiff's mother. The non-party disposed of the land in question as the plaintiff's representative, and if not, if not, the third party would have been deemed to have the right to represent (the records No. 17). This statement was made, and how the plaintiff recognized the fact that the plaintiff granted the right to represent the non-party, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is not based on evidence, and it should also be destroyed by the original judgment.

In accordance with the original judgment, the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the farmland in this case is originally owned by the plaintiff and on the ground that the ownership of the farmland was transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant, on the premise that it is originally owned by the plaintiff. However, in this case of claiming farmland sale, the validity of the Farmland Reform Act can be seen as a so-called ex officio investigation. However, despite the dispute between the parties, the court below determined that the purchase and sale of the farmland in this case by the defendant et al. was effective in light of the Farmland Reform Act, and it cannot be rejected the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the ownership of the farmland was transferred to the defendant et al. without considering the original judgment and the original judgment, according to the court below's original judgment and the original judgment, the court below acknowledged the sale of the farmland in this case without considering the above matters, and decided as such, the original judgment is not erroneous in the appellate judgment, and thus, it should be reversed the plaintiff's judgment and remanded to the case again.

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allotment of Kim Dong-dong