A. Whether the title trust agreement is valid in a case where a farmland trustee has no intention to do so or to do so (negative)

(b) Whether if the ownership transfer registration has been made with respect to farmland, it is presumed that the certificate of the location of the farmland was obtained at the time of the registration (affirmative)

(c) Whether a person who has a certificate of location of the farmland is presumed to have the intention to own or own the farmland (affirmative)

A. A person eligible to purchase farmland under the Farmland Reform Act is limited to a person who intends to be a saf farmer or farm, i.e., a person who wishes to do so even if the farmland was not a farmer at the time of purchase. As such, even in cases of title trust of farmland, the trustee must have the above intent, and if the trustee has no such intent, the title trust agreement is null and void.

(b) If the registration of ownership transfer has been made with respect to farmland, it shall be presumed that the certificate of the location of the farmland under the Farmland Reform Act has already been obtained at the time of the registration.

(c)the person possessing the certification of the location of the farmland shall be presumed to have the intention to own or own the farmland;

(a)B. Article 19(a) of the Farmland Reform Act. Article 6(a) of the same Act. Article 186 of the Civil Code / [title trust]

A. Supreme Court Decision 65Da1043 delivered on July 27, 1965 (No. 13 ② 56), 68Da490 delivered on May 28, 196 (No. 16 ② 88), 75Da1427 delivered on May 11, 1976 (Gong1976, 9183), Supreme Court Decision 69Da469 delivered on June 24, 196 (No. 17 ② 266), 80Da2495 delivered on October 13, 1987 (No. 1987, 1790)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na12546 delivered on August 13, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that "a title trust contract for the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff seeks to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration as a result of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case and that the title trust contract for the farmland is null and void as to the defendant's defense that "a contract which entrusts only the title of the registration to a person who has no intention to own or own the farmland is null and void automatically pursuant to Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da1043 delivered on July 27, 1965; Supreme Court Decision 65Da1036 delivered on August 24, 1965), since the plaintiff purchased land of this case as farmland of this case and entrusted the title trust to the defendant in the name of the owner on the register of the land of this case."

2. A person who is entitled to purchase farmland under the Farmland Reform Act is a person who intends to be a saf farmer or a farmer, namely, a person who wishes to own or own farmland even if it is not a farmer at the time of purchase. Thus, even in a case of title trust of farmland, the trustee must have the above intent. If the trustee has no such intent, the title trust contract is null and void.

However, if the registration of ownership transfer has been made on farmland, it shall be presumed that the certificate of the location of the farmland under the Farmland Reform Act had already been obtained at the time of the registration. Furthermore, the person who had the above certificate of the location of farmland is presumed to have the intention to own and own farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 69Da469, Jun. 24, 1969; Supreme Court Order 77Ma424, Jan. 19, 1978; Supreme Court Order 77Ma424, Jan. 19, 1978;) and as recognized by the court below, the registration of ownership transfer was made on the farmland in this case under the above title trust, so at the time of the title trust, the defendant was presumed to have been equipped with the certificate of the location of the farmland in this case under the Farmland Reform Act, and further, it is presumed that he had the intention to own and own the farmland in this case. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, and there was no intention of the non-party or the transfer of ownership.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)