Where the invalidation of a donation of a non-self-owned farmland violates the principle of good faith.

Even if it was a non-self-owned farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, there is a case where the donator's assertion of nullity is against the principle of good faith.

Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 2 of the Civil Act

7Da1947 delivered on July 24, 1977 (Supreme Court Decision 73Da152 delivered on November 22, 1977, 77Da1947 delivered on November 22, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 11634 delivered on November 1163, 253, Supreme Court Decision 27Da1705 delivered on Farmland Reform Act, Court Gazette No. 5777 delivered on July 25, 197, Article 2 of the Civil Code)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 School Foundation and three others

Government Branch of Seoul District Court (78Gahap361) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 78Gahap361)

1. Revocation of the part against Defendant 2, 3, and 4 in the original judgment;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2, 3, and 4 is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

4. Litigation costs incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant 2, 3, and 4 (the first and second instances) and the appeal costs incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 school foundation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

It is confirmed that real estate recorded in the attached list between the plaintiff and defendant 1 school juristic person is owned by the plaintiff.

With respect to the real estate recorded in the attached list, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Civil Aviation Office Office No. 388 received on April 23, 1960, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on November 29, 1974 by the above registry office No. 6938 on the real estate, and Defendant 4, which was completed on May 20, 1975 by the above registry office No. 2729 on the real estate.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The plaintiff shall revoke the part of the original judgment against defendant 1 school foundation.

The plaintiff and defendant 1 school juristic person confirm that the real estate recorded in the attached list is owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership preservation, which has been completed on April 23, 1960, as Seoul Special Metropolitan City Civil Court Registry No. 388 for the real estate, to the plaintiff.

All of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances, and the defendant 2, 3 and 4 shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2, 3, and 4 is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On June 8, 1931, the plaintiff's real estate stated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") from the non-party 2, from the non-party 3 on January 5, 1938, from the non-party 4 on June 18, 1936, from the non-party 5 on March 18, 1919, from the non-party 6, from the non-party 6 on January 6, 1923, from the non-party 7, from the non-party 8, from the non-party 8, and from the non-party 196, from the non-party 2, from the non-party 4 on January 20, 1925, from the non-party 196, the real estate mentioned in paragraph (2) to the non-party 14, from the non-party 195, from the non-party 14,195.

The Plaintiff asserted that registration of ownership preservation on the real estate in this case was null and void without any ground, and that registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendants is invalid. As such, the Defendants asserted that the above real estate was donated from the Plaintiff and completed registration of ownership preservation for convenience, and thus, it constitutes a valid registration in accordance with the substantive relationship, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above registration of ownership preservation was not in violation of the law of evidence No. 1, No. 2, and the purport of testimony of Non-Party 13 and Non-Party 14 of the lower court’s testimony as to Non-Party 7 of this case (see, e.g., receipt, No. 5-3). Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above registration of ownership preservation for the above real estate was not in violation of the law of evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above registration of ownership preservation for the above real estate was in violation of the law of evidence No. 2, and that it was no more favorable for the Plaintiff to use the above real estate under the name of an organization for public services.

Therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the above defendant's private teaching institute on this real estate is valid because it is consistent with the real relation and therefore, the plaintiff's objection based on the premise that it is null and void shall be dismissed. Since the part on defendant 2, 3, and 4 in the original judgment is unfair based on the conclusion different from this conclusion, this is revoked and the remaining part is justified and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89, 95, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)