Even if the registration of transfer of ownership of farmland is merely the purpose of a debt security, the creditor is the owner of the farmland in the external relationship, so all matters necessary for the ownership of the farmland in the Farmland Reform Act should be prepared.

Even if the registration of transfer of ownership of farmland is merely the purpose of a debt security, the creditor is the owner of the farmland in the external relationship, so all matters necessary for the ownership of the farmland in the Farmland Reform Act should be prepared.

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1005 Decided August 30, 1968, 68Da490 Decided May 28, 1968, 67Da1640 Decided October 10, 1967, 65Da1043 Decided July 27, 1965

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2275 delivered on December 10, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 28Na275 delivered on December 10, 1969

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 and No. 3 of the No. 1999 are examined.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above registration of ownership transfer against the Farmland Reform Act was invalid because both of the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 did not acquire the above real estate under the name of the defendant 1 although they were not farmers. Thus, since the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the purpose of securing the claim, it cannot be deemed that the registration of ownership transfer under the defendant 1's name would violate the Farmland Reform Act since they were disposed of to the defendant 2, and even if the defendant 2 purchased the above real estate from defendant 1 to the defendant 1 and entrusted the above management to the non-party, it cannot be deemed that the acquisition of the above real estate was invalid in violation of the Farmland Reform Act. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant 2's ownership transfer registration of the above real estate cannot be deemed to be invalid in violation of the Farmland Reform Act, since the defendant 1 and the above registration of ownership transfer cannot be deemed to have been completed for the purpose of acquiring the above real estate under the name of the creditor 1's name, and it cannot be deemed to have been justified for the purpose of acquiring the right to the ownership of the real estate.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating judges, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court