Whether even a nominal owner on the register is fully deprived of ownership unless he/she transfers his/her farmland to another person before implementing the Farmland Reform Act.

A person who transferred the ownership of farmland to another person before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and granted the real delivery of the ownership to another person shall lose the ownership completely and have no right to dispose of the ownership even if it remains in the name of the owner on the register.

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 187 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and 8 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na515 delivered on August 21, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the deceased non-party 1 and non-party 2 are the same person and the deceased non-party 3 and the non-party 4, and compared the process of documentary evidence to recognize this fact with the records, it cannot be found that there was a violation of the rules of evidence or a failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which is without merit.

With respect to the second and third points

According to the reasoning of the original judgment, the lower court determined that the land of this case was farmland that was assessed under Defendant 2’s name, Defendant 2’s father at the time of the original land investigation, and that around June 10, 1914, Nonparty 5 transferred ownership to Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4, and transferred the actual status, and thereafter, Nonparty 1 thereafter recognized that he was cultivated by the Plaintiff in the order of Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 2, his grandchildren, followed.

In comparison with the records, we affirm the judgment below's above fact-finding, and it cannot be said that there were errors such as non-exercise of the right to know, incomplete deliberation, and finding facts without evidence. If the factual relations are the same, even if the ownership of the farmland was transferred to another person before the farmland was implemented and the above non-party 5, who did not cultivate thereafter, remains in the name of ownership on the register, has the right to completely lose the ownership of the farmland and dispose of it (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da1993, Feb. 22, 1972). Thus, the judgment of the court below, which stated to the same purport, is just and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act or the Registration Act. In addition, we cannot accept the argument that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act or the law of the law of the registration of farmland, on the premise that the land in question was farmland under the premise that the land in question was cultivated without the right of ownership of the plaintiffs, or on the ground that the court below

The final appeal is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)