Where a registration of transfer of ownership has been made due to the completion of repayment, whether the procedure for distribution of farmland is lawful or not.

If not only a documentary evidence or document, which corresponds to the fact that a piece of land has been distributed as farmland, but also a ownership transfer registration has been made due to the completion of repayment of the farmland, the procedure for distribution of farmland to it shall be presumed to have been legitimate and, unless there is any reasonable evidence objectively acceptable, the presumption cannot be reversed by recognizing the fact contrary to the contents of the document only by the witness's testimony.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 16-2 of the Farmland Reform Act

Korea

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 4 and 37 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and two others

Defendant 42 and 15 others, Attorney Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 78Na354 delivered on February 8, 1980

1. Each appeal by the Plaintiff, Defendant 3, Defendant 34, Defendant 35, Defendant 36, Defendant 37, Defendant 38, Defendant 39, Defendant 40, and Defendant 41 is dismissed.

2. Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment against Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

3. The costs of the appeal by the dismissed portion shall be borne by each appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the appeal by Defendants 3, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41, the record reveals that the above Defendants were notified of the receipt of legal records of appeal, but did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period, and the petition of appeal does not contain any information in the grounds for appeal and there is no ground for ex officio investigation. Thus, the above Defendants’ appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 399 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32, respectively,

(6) On the ground of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 6.1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 5. The non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 5. The non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 5. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 6. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 6. The non-party 4 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 6. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were 6. The non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were 9. The non-party 4 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were 6. The non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were omitted.

However, if an official document or document corresponds to what land has been distributed as farmland, and the ownership transfer registration for the farmland has been made, as well as the above official document or document, it shall be presumed that the farmland distribution procedure has been lawful and there is no reasonable evidence to be objectively acceptable, and it shall not be reversed by recognizing the facts contrary to the contents of the document only by the witness's testimony at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the evidence quoted in the fact-finding that the land in the judgment below was not farmland at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, or that the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to forgery of distribution-related documents, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the same fact in the form of evidence, other than the defendant 44's statement which was lawfully omitted at the time of completion of payment. However, if the above defendant 44's statements were made by the defendant 1 and the defendant 1424 and 1974's statement on the land at the time of expiration of 197, it is hard to find that there was no evidence to acknowledge the above facts.

The court below's aforementioned statement by Defendant 44 was forged with the documents related to the distribution of farmland as stated in the judgment by the court below, and since the farmland distribution procedure and the power to estimate the transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of repayment, which should be presumed lawful, cannot be deemed to have violated the rules of evidence, and each appeal on this point is reasonable. Therefore, the decision of the court below as to the above Defendants should be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

3. As to the ground of appeal by the plaintiff performer:

The court below's rejection of the court below's rejection of the non-party 2 of the prosecutor's statement of the non-party 2 of the criminal record verification cited as the argument that the land of the plaintiff was not farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, or that the farmland distribution document was forged, is the evidence No. 3, which is the evidence No. 44 of the prosecutor's protocol No. 44 of Jan. 29, 1976, which is the evidence No. 44 of the prosecutor's protocol No. 3 of the defendant 44, because it is the evidence No. 3 of the prosecutor's protocol of Jan. 29, 1976.

Unlike the court below's fact-finding process, the court below's examination of the evidence preparation process can not be considered as a violation of the rules of evidence, and therefore there is no argument.

4. Therefore, the appeal by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the Disposition No. 1 is dismissed, and the judgment of the court below as to the Defendants in the Disposition No. 2 is reversed and remanded to the court below. The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)