Where the State occupies farmland purchased pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act, the nature of the possession (=the possession)

Article 197(1) of the Civil Act; Article 5 subparag. 2 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (Act No. 14835 of Dec. 22, 1995)

Supreme Court Decision 2011Da15094 Decided July 28, 2011 (Gong2011Ha, 1776)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Shin Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea and one other (Attorney Lee Hy-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 2013Da219579 Decided May 16, 2014

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na25411 Decided November 27, 2014

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The Government's purchase of farmland which is not self-defined by the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 2, 1994, hereinafter "the former Farmland Reform Act") under the condition that the farmland will not be distributed after its purchase. Among the purchased farmland, it is not included in the distributed farmland finalized through the procedure under Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, or it is not actually distributed to farmers among the farmland determined as distributed as such, if the Government's purchase of farmland is confirmed as not distributed to farmers, its ownership is returned to the original owner. Thus, the State's purchase of farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act is planned to be reverted to the original owner, and if non-distribution becomes finalized, it shall not be deemed that the possession of the farmland purchased by the State with the intention of the genuine owner should be deemed as possession with the intention to exclude possession of the farmland, and it shall be deemed as possession.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the real estate of this case was divided into 3,417 square meters (hereinafter “real estate before division”) 3,417 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun (No. 1 omitted), Nonparty 1, who is the Plaintiff’s father, and part of the real estate before division of this case, which was the Plaintiff’s father, was included in the purchase farmland of the Republic of Korea following the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act; Defendant Republic of Korea distributed farmland to farmers of 2,814 square meters among the real estate before division of this case (hereinafter “distribution farmland”); the real estate before division of this case was divided into 429 square meters prior to Leecheon-gun (No. 1 omitted); 113 square meters prior to the completion of the registration of ownership transfer; and (2) the real estate was divided into 58 square meters prior to the completion of the registration of ownership transfer; and (3) the real estate was divided into 58 square meters prior to the completion of the registration of ownership transfer; and (2) the real estate was excluded from 135 to 535365 square meters of this case.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, 55 of the preceding 3 or 6 real estate which is the mother land of the Defendant Republic of Korea is highly likely to have been included in the purchase farmland of the Defendant Republic of Korea under the former Farmland Reform Act and distributed to Nonparty 3 for any reason thereafter. In addition, if it is determined that the 55 of the preceding 55 square meters was not included in the distributed farmland, the possession of the real estate of the Defendant Republic of Korea in the third or 6 real estate of this case cannot be deemed as an independent possession with the intent to avoid the control of the genuine owner, and the possession of the real estate in the nature of the title is deemed as the possession of the real estate in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine.

However, according to the records, the plaintiffs asserted that the 55th of the 55th of the 3 or 6 real estate in this case was not distributed farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act even before the court below's decision. On the other hand, although the preservation of ownership of the 3 or 6 real estate in the name of the defendant Republic of Korea has been maintained, the defendant Republic of Korea asserted that the 55th of the 55th of the 3 or 6 real estate in this case was distributed as distributed farmland and disposed of to a third party, and that the 55th of the 55th of the 55th of the 3th of the 55th of the 3th of the 3 or 6 real estate in this case was also disputed

In light of the above circumstances, the lower court should have deliberated on the following facts in light of the above legal principles: (a) 55 years prior to the date of the instant 3 or 6 real estate gathering, which is the farmland determined as distributed farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act; (b) whether repayment has been completed in the event of distributed farmland; or (c) whether the distribution farmland was subsequently excluded from distributed farmland; and (d) if the said 55 years prior to the date of the instant 3 or 6 farmland was distributed and the said farmland was determined not to have been actually distributed to the farmer, the lower court should have deliberated on whether the Plaintiffs asserted that the presumption of possession of the Defendant’s possession of the real estate in the instant 3 or 6 real estate was broken.

Nevertheless, solely for the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that it cannot be deemed that the presumption of possession with respect to the possession of the Defendant Republic of Korea with respect to the third or sixth real estate in this case was broken, and accepted the defense of the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of possession by the Defendant Republic of Korea and rejected the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendants. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on possession with respect to possession with respect to the failure to exercise

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)