Whether the ownership registration title of farmland is purchased from the Government under the Farmland Reform Act in case where the truster who is the actual owner is entrusted to a third party at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and is not self-defilled.

The issue of whether "the farmland of a person who does not own own land" in paragraph 2(b) of this Article shall be determined according to whether the farmer is cultivated by the actual owner, not according to the owner's authorization on the register at the time this Act enters into force.

Article 5 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Kim Jae-ship (Attorney Kim Jae-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Kim Yong-hwan (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na443 delivered on February 24, 1965

Of the original judgment, the part concerning 163 square meters and 163 square meters in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court;

The defendant's appeal against the remainder is dismissed.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's agent is examined.

However, since the judgment of the court below and the fact-finding of the evidence belong to the exclusive authority of the court below, and each evidence is examined in detail in the court below by the records, and it is possible to find facts such as the health care room, it is not possible to adopt arguments to criticize the judgment of the evidence and the fact-finding lawfully conducted by the court below on the premise of independent value judgment as to the circumstances within the evidence, and in each testimony of Lee Jae-sik and Kim Jae-il, the court below decided that the defendant lent the part of the price to the plaintiff's network or the defendant's testimony that the plaintiff's purchase was made by adding the plaintiff's network, and the court below did not accept this part of the testimony, and the purport of this decision is that there is no error identical with the theory of lawsuit because it is obvious that the witness's testimony that is in conflict with the facts recognized by the court below should be rejected. Therefore, all arguments are groundless.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, as long as the court below purchased the real estate in this case, which is the case of general civil procedure that must be tried by the principle of pleading in accordance with the principle of pleading, so long as it could have recognized the fact that the plaintiff was managed and operated with the defendant by purchasing the real estate in this case under the name of the defendant and using the real estate in the name of the defendant, it cannot be said that the court below erred by failing to deliberate and decide on the various facts of the theory of lawsuit that is not asserted or proven by the parties, so it cannot be employed.

The third ground of appeal is examined.

According to the original judgment, the court below determined that the trust in the name of the registry does not have the effect of transfer of ownership externally even if the transfer of ownership becomes effective domestically, and therefore, whether the farmland trusted on the registry at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is authorized to be purchased by the Government should be determined by the trustee, who is the holder of the ownership on the registry at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act.

However, the issue of whether the farmland of a person who does not do so is farmland under Article 5 subparagraph 2 (b) of the Farmland Reform Act shall be determined according to whether the cultivator at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is not the owner on the register but the actual owner is not the owner on the register. In the case of the trust of the title of registration, the trust holder shall be deemed to have the real ownership in the case of the trust of the title of registration. If the above opinion is taken, even the owner of farmland more than three information shall be held to avoid the application of the Farmland Reform Act, and it is obvious that it is unreasonable, so if the above land was farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and the person other than the actual owner was cultivated, it shall be deemed to have been purchased by the Government, notwithstanding the fact that the judgment of the court below is not erroneous, and the decision of the plaintiff's representative referred to in the above decision is not appropriate,

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu