(a) The effect of registration of preservation of ownership made in duplicate with a different registered titleholder on the same real estate;

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)

A. The registration of initial ownership is null and void even if it conforms to the substantive legal relationship, unless the initial registration of initial ownership is null and void, in cases where overlapping registration of initial ownership has been completed due to the different registration holders of the same real estate.

(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.

A. Article 186 of the Civil Act; Article 15 of the Registration of Real Estate Act; Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 187 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 178) (Gong1991, 178) 91Da25116 Decided October 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 2693) 92Da16522 Decided October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3263). (b) Supreme Court Decision 4291Da147 Decided October 30, 1958 (Gong4291Sang531,532 Decided July 16, 1959)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na8266 delivered on June 4, 1992

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

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 written by the former owner to Nonparty 1, who is the defendant's father, and the distributor to Nonparty 2, and according to the copy of the register of the witness Gap-2, 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 pursuant to Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act. The land of this case was originally owned by Nonparty 1, who is the defendant's father, because the Farmland Reform Act was promulgated and enforced on June 21, 1949 by Act No. 31 of June 21, 194, it is difficult to see that it was distributed to the above non-party 2 pursuant to Article 11 of the above 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 deliberated more on the evidence No. 7-1, No. 7-2, etc., and clarify whether the land in this case was owned by the State at the same time as the promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, and whether the land was owned by the State and became owned by the above non-party No. 2 due to the completion of repayment thereafter. However, although it should have judged whether the above registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name was invalid, it should be determined that there was no evidence as seen above. Thus, it cannot be said that there was an incomplete deliberation affecting the decision or an error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as

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.