(a) Estimated history of registration of preservation of ownership or ownership transfer made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer;

(b) Validity of distribution of farmland to the land already built;

A. Registration of preservation of ownership or transfer of ownership made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land or the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate is presumed to be registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, and such presumption shall be maintained as it is, unless there is any assertion on the special circumstance that the letter of guarantee

(b)the allocation of farmland on already-established land is null and void as a matter of course;

(a) Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land; Article 6 and Article 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate; Article 186 of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Da1422 delivered on December 9, 1986, 87Da1312 delivered on October 28, 1987. Supreme Court Decision 71Da47 delivered on November 30, 197, 73Da574 delivered on October 31, 1973, 80Da2750 delivered on December 28, 1982

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na1967 delivered on December 24, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant Litigation Performers.

The presumption of ownership preservation or ownership transfer registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership or under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership shall be presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship, and its presumption shall be maintained as it is unless there is any assertion as to the circumstance that the letter of guarantee and confirmation under the above Act are false or forged (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1422 delivered on December 9, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1312 delivered on October 28, 1987). The court below's decision that the registration of ownership preservation of the plaintiff's name in accordance with the above Act conforms to the substantive relationship is just and it is not reasonable, and there is no ground to discuss this issue, as argued by the theory

We examine the second ground for appeal.

Based on macro evidence, the court below found the following facts: (a) No. 579 was the actual site at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act; (b) the building No. 1 building owned by Nonparty 1 and the building No. 1 building No. 2 owned by Nonparty 1 and the building No. 2 were constructed on the ground; and (c) the above Nonparty occupied by Nonparty 3 while growing a collection facility in a public notice, etc.; (d) although Nonparty 3 did not issue a repayment certificate for the above land to Nonparty 3 and 4, the above non-party 4 did not know of the fact that the above land was disposed of as distributed to the above non-party 3 until 1980; and (b) under the above recognition, the court below rejected the registration of ownership transfer for the farmland No. 1 to the above non-party 3 (the above non-party 2) on the ground that the above non-party 3 completed the repayment of the farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act; and (e) determined that the registration of ownership transfer for the above farmland No. 1 to the above non-party 2 was unlawful.

However, in cases where documentary evidence or document, which is an official document as above, corresponding to the fact that farmland was distributed, is recorded, barring any special circumstance that could be objectively recognized, the fact of the violation is a legal doctrine that could not be easily recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu188, Apr. 8, 1986). According to the repayment ledger and the payment record from the above, it is stated that the land was distributed to Nonparty 3 at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that the amount of redemption under the Farmland Reform Act was paid to the government, and according to the records of No. 1, No. 2, No. 2, and No. 1, No. 2, and No. 2, the land of this case is classified into land before the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the farmland of this case was distributed as farmland under the Farmland Reform Act at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, but there was no error in the lower court’s finding of fact that there was no distribution disposition.

Therefore, examining whether the above farmland distribution is legitimate, the judgment of the court below has confirmed the fact that the farmland distribution was not farmland at the time of the distribution of farmland, but it was actually made in fact, and in light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable in light of the records, and therefore, even if the farmland distribution was actually made with respect to the land which became a site, the farmland distribution should not be exempted from being void as a matter of course. Therefore, the registration made on the ground of the farmland distribution cannot be cancelled as a cause invalidation. Thus, even though the judgment of the court below that the land in this case did not actually have been distributed as a site, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that the registration of the defendant's ownership preservation of the land in this case is a registration of the invalidation which is not consistent with the substantive relation, and there is no reason to dispute the above.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)