Whether the descriptions of documents related to farmland distribution can be used as data for fact-finding on the alteration of rights by comprehensively taking into account other circumstances and the contents of the documents related to farmland distribution (affirmative)

Article 186 of the Civil Act; Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 5 subparagraph 2, 8, 11, and 13 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of December 22, 1994); Articles 32 and 38 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, Presidential Decree No. 14835 of December 22, 1995); Articles 16 subparagraph 2, 19, and 45 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act, Ordinance No. 1217 of December 29, 1995)

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da87508 Decided April 15, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 881), Supreme Court Decision 2012Da24415 Decided June 28, 2012, Supreme Court Decision 2012Da91354 Decided June 27, 2013, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da13808 Decided June 26, 2014

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 201Na30908 decided January 11, 2012

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if documents prepared in the course of distributing farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply), they are not presumed to be the owner of farmland subject to distribution, but not to be presumed to be the owner of farmland subject to distribution. However, there is no limitation to using the above documents as materials for fact-finding regarding the change of rights in full view of other circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da87508, Apr. 15, 2010; 2012Da24415, Jun. 28, 2012). In addition, if the aforementioned documents are recorded in the process of distributing farmland under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (repealed by Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; 2014Da37568, Jun. 28, 2012).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and evidence duly admitted by the court below, the non-party 1, 570 square meters (hereinafter "the land before subdivision") with the address of the non-party 3 on Sep. 17, 191, and the plaintiffs jointly inherited the above non-party 1's property on the non-party 4 (the non-party 1 omitted). Meanwhile, the non-party 2 purchased the land (the non-party 2,840 square meters, the non-party 2,264 square meters, the non-party 4) with the non-party 3's address on the non-party 4 (the non-party 2's address on the non-party 4) and the non-party 4 (the non-party 2's address on the non-party 4) with the non-party 2's address on the non-party 5 (the non-party 4's address on the non-party 1's own land) on the non-party 4 (the non-party 5'the non-party 2'the non-party 1's land).

The following circumstances revealed from these factual relations, namely, the fixed distribution farmland register and repayment register, which verify the farmland subject to distribution and describe necessary matters for repayment, are all indicated as Nonparty 2, or the original owner of the land prior to the division of this case or as divided by this ( Address 3 omitted), and the ( Address 4 omitted) land is indicated as Nonparty 2. In addition, under the former Farmland Reform Act and related regulations, it is sufficient to deem that Nonparty 1 or his heir had already disposed of the land prior to the division of this case at the time of the distribution of the farmland prior to the division of this case, and the land was also indicated as Nonparty 2 in the form of the original owner of the land prior to the division of this case, and the land price was also indicated as Nonparty 2. In addition, according to the annexed regulations such as the former Farmland Reform Act and related intelligence, it is sufficient to deem that Nonparty 1 or his heir had lost ownership by selling it to a third party at the time of the distribution of the farmland prior to the division of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that Nonparty 1 or his subsequent grandchildren had already lost the ownership of the land before the instant partition solely on the ground that the documents related to the distribution of farmland were recorded as props or persons to be compensated, even if they were not presumed to have ownership under the substantive law. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the probative value of documents related to the distribution of farmland, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 on the bench

[Attachment] List of Appointeds: Omitted

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)