Transfer of farmland before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and does not do so: Provided, That the validity of the registration of mortgage creation made after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act by the former owner who has only ownership on the register;

A person who has no substantial ownership of farmland and does not do so is unable to hold any right to the land at the same time as this Act enters into force, so even if he/she has a title to ownership on the register, he/she may not acquire such right thereafter.

Article 5 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant 1 and three others

Daejeon High Court Decision 65Na792 delivered on April 13, 1966

The appeal against the plaintiff 1 against the defendant 4, 3, and 1 is dismissed.

The litigation costs arising from the Dong's appeal shall be borne by the Dong's plaintiff.

Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant 2 and 3 of the plaintiff 2 and 3 on the defendant 1 [the part related to the ○○○, Chungcheongnam-gun, △△△, △△△, 1224] shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

In comparison with the original judgment with records, there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of litigation on the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding in the original judgment, so there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory on the preparation of evidence in the original judgment, so the fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the original judgment,

2. The grounds of the same subparagraph are examined;

In a case where the plaintiff 1's public-private partnership ○○, ○○, ○○, △△-ri, 867, the part claimed against the defendant 4, 3, and 1 on the farmland at auction and the registration of ownership transfer has been made under the name of Dong, the defendant shall be presumed to have acquired the ownership of the farmland at a successful bid following lawful procedures, and the defendant shall not be deemed to have obtained the ownership of the farmland at the same time because the ownership of the farmland at this issue is in violation of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, the argument on this part is groundless.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the original judgment, Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 examined the claim portion against Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 as to 1224 square meters at the same interest rate (number 1 omitted), the first 1224 square meters at ○○○○○○, △△△, out of the farmland, have finished the registration of transfer under the name of the deceased non-party 1 purchased on August 8, 1948, and then delivered 60 square meters at that time to Plaintiff 3, his father, and the last 624 square meters was delivered to Plaintiff 2, who was one’s own father, but the transfer registration was not completed. The above non-party 1 died without his child in 1953, and the non-party 2, his wife, who was his wife, completed the registration of transfer on his own name on February 7, 1958, and rejected the registration of transfer of the ownership of the plaintiff 1, who was the owner of the above land, on the same date as the auction number of the plaintiff 200.

However, the term "farmland of a person who does not own own land" in Article 5 (2) (b) of the Farmland Reform Act refers to farmland that is not actually cultivated by the person even if the person is the owner on the registry or in fact at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and even if there is no ownership on the registry, in light of the legal principles that the farmland of the person who actually cultivates the farmland is excluded from purchase, even though there is no real ownership, it shall be deemed that the owner on the registry does not have any right to the land at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. Therefore, even if the owner on the registry did not own land at the same time after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, even if the mortgage was registered by the former owner on the registry without the consent of the owner on the registry, it shall be deemed that the establishment registration was made by the non-party 1, and even if there was no ground for the execution of mortgage, it shall be deemed that the ownership should not be transferred even if the plaintiff and the non-party 2 had no ownership on the land before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, on the grounds as seen above, the judgment of the court below was unlawful that dismissed the claim for this part of the case on Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 2’s ○○○○-gun, △△△△△, ○○, △△△, △△, 1224 (number 1 omitted). Therefore, the argument on this part is reasonable, and the part on Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 among the original judgment should not be reversed.

3. Accordingly, the appeal against the plaintiff 1's defendant 4, 3, and 1 is without merit. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. The appeal against the plaintiff 2, 3's defendant 2, and 1 is with merit. Thus, this part of the original judgment is reversed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu