Where the cultivator of the land scheduled for substitution has been determined as the land scheduled for substitution after having specified and distributed part of the land scheduled for substitution, and the redemption has been completed, the ownership relationship between the transferor and the former transferee (=mutual title trust relationship)

If a person who has cultivated a land to be reserved for replotting completes the repayment by specifying and distributing part of the land to be reserved for replotting in accordance with the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994), even if the share ownership transfer registration pursuant to the ratio of the area of the specific part has been completed, the person who has cultivated the land to be reserved for replotting does not acquire the share of the entire land to be reserved for replotting, but acquires the divided ownership of the specific part of the land to be reserved for replotting in possession in each time, and then becomes final and conclusive after the land substitution is completed. In such cases, a mutual title trust relationship exists between the parties, such as the parties

Article 103 [title trust] and Article 262 of the Civil Act; Article 11 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 57 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da3703 Decided August 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 2419), Supreme Court Decision 92Da22381 Decided September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 285), Supreme Court Decision 90Da20039 Decided May 10, 1991 (Gong1992, 1603), Supreme Court Decision 93Da42986 Decided February 8, 1994 (Gong194, 108), Supreme Court Decision 95Da39794 decided Oct. 25, 1996 (Gong1994, 108), Supreme Court Decision 95Da397949 decided Apr. 197, 1997)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Hyun-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na23132 delivered on August 27, 1998

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

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below: (a) purchased shares in the above-mentioned land of Yeongdeungpo-gu 146 square meters prior to land substitution (hereinafter referred to as "previous land") and owned them to the State after sunset; and (b) purchased shares in the previous land on January 15, 194, 167 No. 167 and No. 263.75 of the previous land lot No. 168; and (c) it was designated as a land substitution for replotting on September 2, 1966 as a result of the Plaintiff's lack of ownership transfer registration for the above-mentioned land on the ground that the above-mentioned land was owned by Nonparty 1 and the previous land lot No. 946 square meters prior to land substitution for the same purpose; (d) there was no error of law regarding the distribution of the remaining part of the land owned by the Defendant on the ground of the non-party 2's lack of ownership transfer registration on the ground that the land was distributed to the non-party 1537.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal as to this part is without merit, since it is merely merely to criticize and attack the determination of evidence, which is a fact-finding court’s exclusive authority, and to criticize and attack the recognition of facts.

2. If a person who cultivated a reserved land for replotting has completed the repayment by specifying and distributing part of the reserved land for replotting in accordance with the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, even if he/she did not acquire the share ownership transfer registration according to the ratio of the area of the pertinent specific part, but if he/she acquired the ownership of the specific part of the reserved land for replotting, which is occupied by distribution, and thereafter becomes final and conclusive as the reserved land for replotting, he/she should acquire the ownership of the specific part. In such cases, a mutual title trust relationship exists between the parties, such as the parties who cultivated the reserved land for replotting and the prior transferee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da32734, Sept. 18, 1998; 91Da3703, Aug. 27, 1991; 89Meu14998, May 25, 1990).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the registration of 74.97 shares in the defendant's name as to the land of this case is the registration of the title trustee in accordance with the mutual title trust relation, based on the facts of the above recognition, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the land substitution confirmation disposition in the sectionally owned co-ownership relation and the implied declaration of intention as to the contract to which the State is a party,

All of the precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked as different cases from this case.

We cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part.

3. The assertion that urban development charges entered in the statement of the grounds for appeal on the grounds of appeal have not been settled is not clear from the correct meaning, grounds, details, and the claim in this case seeking the resolution of title trust and the return of the entrusted share, even though the money under such name is not liquidated, it does not affect any conclusion of the claim in this case. The argument in the grounds for appeal on the acquisition of prescription is merely an assertion on the preliminary claim that the court below did not determine, and it is without merit.

4. 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 on the bench.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)