If a minor or farm is a minor or farm;

Even if the defendant was a minor under 17 years of age at the time of acquiring farmland, if his parents had the intent and ability to cultivate the farmland for the defendant, he can be seen as a farmer under the Farmland Reform Act.

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da931 Delivered on September 25, 1973

Lee Tae-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

United States District Court Decision 201Hun-Nam30 decided May 1, 201

Gwangju High Court Decision 79Na274 delivered on January 28, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by Plaintiff Kim Un-soo (the grounds of appeal on additional appellate brief are examined to the extent of supplement in case of the above grounds of appeal).

1. As to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the evidence that corresponds to the plaintiff's argument that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of defendant U-turn for the real estate of this case was invalid against the plaintiff's will, and recognized the fact that the non-party U-turn for the above defendant's appearance, based on the evidence of employment, purchased the real estate of this case from the plaintiff, and donated it to the above defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the above defendant's name. There is no error in the misapprehension of law by examining

Even if the court below did not examine the financial status of the Institute of Bosul Sylon, it is difficult to see that the above judgment has any influence on the determination of the facts, and as long as the registration of ownership transfer has been completed from the Defendant U.S., the registration of the name of the defendant U.S. is valid as long as the registration of the name of the defendant U.S. is valid.

In addition, according to the records, it is identical to the theory of lawsuit that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendant U.S. 1,88 to 2,035 among the real estate in this case, along with a certificate of guarantee that the person liable for registration is not the person liable for registration, instead of a certificate of registration. However, according to the witness testimony of the court of first instance that was not rejected by the court below, it is recognized that the plaintiff, as the plaintiff's wife, delivered the above certificate to U.S. 3 to the defendant U.S., along with other certificate of registration of the right to the land in this case. Thus, even if the above certificate was substituted by the above certificate of registration without using the above certificate of registration, it cannot be deemed that the above registration in the name of U.S. s. 1 to 2,035 to the above real estate in this case is invalid. In addition, unless the person liable for registration of the above real estate is the plaintiff, even if the guarantor of the certificate attached to the above application for registration without confirming whether it is the person liable for registration.

In the end, there is no reason to hold the judgment below that there is an error of incomplete deliberation or omission of judgment.

2. As to No. 2:

According to the records, it is identical to the theory of lawsuit that Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, etc. of the witness was convicted of perjury among the testimony at the court below or the court of first instance. However, even if the non-party 1 and 2's testimony employed by the court of first instance excludes the part recognized as perjury, there is no error in the measures that adopted the above witness's testimony by sufficiently proving the facts of the court below, and the court below did not err in the measures that adopted the above witness's testimony, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and the omission of reasons

In addition, the court below's decision that the defendant U-do was a minor under 17 years of age, such as theory at the time of acquiring 1764-2, 1764-2, 1768, among the real estate of this case, and that the parent of this case had the intent and ability to cultivate the above farmland on behalf of the above defendant, can be viewed as a farmer that can acquire farmland (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da931 delivered on September 25, 1973). Further, the court below's decision that the U-Do-ho or the farmland owned by the non-party 1 did not exceed the limit of ownership under the Farmland Reform Act is acceptable.

After all, there is no reason for the judgment of the court below that there is a violation of the rules of evidence, omission in the reasoning, and an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)