Where the right of cultivation has been jointly cultivated with the same farmland by having the right of cultivation on his/her own, the ownership of such land.

Even if a person has cultivated another person's farmland without family title, his/her farmland shall belong to the owner of the farmer's farmland, and if he/she has cultivated the same farmland with one another and thus he/she has cultivated the same farmland, the ownership of his/her farmland belongs to the co-ownership of the above co- cultivator.

Article 102 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da874 Decided July 20, 1965

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 66Na239 delivered on March 28, 1967, Daegu District Court Decision 66Na239 delivered on March 28, 1967

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows. The plaintiff purchased a part of the above land as a site before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and completed the registration of ownership transfer. The non-party 4 constructed a house which was exempted from the above road as a site, and cultivated the remaining land as farmland. However, the non-party 4 continued to cultivate the above land as farmland by opening the land from 1951 to 1951 and growing it as farmland (the above house was destroyed at the time of June 25 and opened its site), and the non-party 5 did not own the above land and sold it to the non-party 6, and the non-party 5, the non-party 6 puts the land to the non-party 7 and the non-party 7 to the non-party 8, and sold it to the non-party 7 and the non-party 8, the non-party 7, and the plaintiff acquired it as the plaintiff 16, the non-party 6, the non-party 7, and the non-party 4 sold the above land to the non-party 6.

Even if a person has cultivated another person's farmland without family title, his farmland will belong to the owner of the farmer's farmland, and the person has the right to cultivate the same farmland with one another, and eventually, if the person has cultivated the same farmland jointly, the ownership of the said farmland belongs to the co-ownership of the above co-farmer. Therefore, in the main case of this case (Law No. 1965, Jul. 20, 195; Supreme Court Decision 65Da874, Feb. 20, 199), the original decision should be reversed to the effect that, as recognized by the court below, the original defendant has the right to cultivate one another, and if the person has cultivated the farmland jointly with the original defendant by paying expenses, he will be deemed to belong to the co-ownership of the original defendant. However, the original decision should be reversed without any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong