[1] Whether a person who occupies and cultivates farmland can be deemed to lose possession during the above period solely on the basis of the fact that he/she registered his/her resident registration as a different place for about three months and returned to a different place (negative)

[2] Whether the owner is presumed to be the owner under substantive law in the case of entry in the farmland complaint as a prop (negative)

[3] Whether the possession can be deemed as the possession of a third party solely on the basis of the fact that the person purchased farmland from a person other than the person specified in the farmland sheet and occupied and cultivated it (negative)

[1] The fact that a person who occupies and cultivates farmland has registered his/her resident registration as a different place for three months, but has returned to the former address cannot be deemed to have lost his/her possession over the land during the above period.

[2] It is not presumed that a person who has ownership under substantive law is a prop set in the farmland complaint.

[3] Since the purchase of farmland from a person other than the person specified in the farmland complaint, it cannot be deemed that only the right to occupy and use the farmland was purchased immediately, it cannot be deemed that the possession is the possession of the farmland by nature of the title.

[1] Article 245 of the Civil Code, Article 11 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act No. 14835 of Dec. 22, 1995) / [2] Articles 11 and 15 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 32 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 2 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act No. 14835 of Dec. 22, 1995) / [3] Article 245 of the Civil Code, Article 245 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by the Presidential Decree No. 2151 of the Farmland Act No. 2813 of Dec. 127, 198 of Dec. 27, 199)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3370 delivered on April 25, 198)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na31662 delivered on March 25, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Based on its evidence, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case, which is farmland located in the Gyeonggi-gun (No. 1 omitted), from the non-party 1 in around 1955 and cultivated it from around that time, and decided to the effect that it is insufficient to recognize that the possession of the land of this case was lost for the above approximately three months only on the ground that the plaintiff's resident registration was registered as Eunpyeong-gu Seoul (No. 2 omitted) for about three months from October 21, 1981 to January 19, 1982, and returned to the above (No. 1 omitted). In light of the records, the court below's above measures are just and correct, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding or of misunderstanding of facts as pointed out.

The grounds of appeal on this cannot be accepted.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

As stated in the farmland complaint, it is not presumed to have ownership under the substantive law as a prop (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu3168, Apr. 25, 198; 94Da27649, Sept. 15, 1995).

The court below held that since it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the above non-party 1, which was written as non-party 2, and the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the above non-party 1, not a prop in the farmland land list, the plaintiff merely purchased the right to occupy and use the land of this case, the plaintiff's possession of the land of this case cannot be deemed as the possession of the land of this case by the nature of its source of authority.

In addition, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff did not act as a matter of course that would have been engaged in if the genuine owner did not have paid the aggregate land tax or farmland tax on the land of this case.

As pointed out in the judgment of the court below, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the misunderstanding of the legal principles of the former Farmland Reform Act, the violation of the precedents, or the misunderstanding of facts (However, since subparagraph 4, which is a farmland list No. 2, stated that the prop of this case's land is non-party 2 and its own writing, if the sum of the farmland owned by non-party 2 exceeds 3 information, it can be the object of purchase and distribution by the State. However, if the land is distributed for the above reasons, it can not be distributed to non-party 2. Therefore, if it is distributed to non-party 2, it is not distributed to non-party 2. Therefore, the part that the court below found that the land of this case was distributed to non-party 2 as farmland distribution, but it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff only purchased the right to occupy and use the land

The grounds of appeal on this cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)