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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if the name is indicated in the column of the owner on the old land cadastre restored before the amendment of the Cadastral Act on December 31, 1975, the presumption of right cannot be recognized. Since the distribution farmland repayment register or the distribution farmland register is a document prepared to state matters necessary for repayment after the completion of the distribution farmland decision procedure, the presumption of the alteration of right cannot be acknowledged.

Therefore, a person who is not an owner of land in the Japanese colonial period is registered as an owner in the old land cadastre or the land repayment register of distributed farmland.

Even if so, the nominal owner cannot be presumed to be the owner.

However, there is no limitation to using the entries in the former land cadastre or farmland distribution-related documents as data for fact-finding as data for fact-finding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da87508, Apr. 15, 2010). In cases where not only the documents stating matters necessary for repayment, such as the documents confirming farmland subject to distribution, such as farmland land register, and the distribution farmland register, or the repayment ledger, or the documents confirming the farmland subject to distribution-related farmland in the process of receiving compensation from the State, but also the written application for compensation, the props report, the land price assessment report, and the land price bond, are consistent with the owner’s entries in the process of receiving compensation from the State, these documents shall be deemed as valuable materials to recognize that the land ownership was transferred to the titleholder at least at the time of

In such a case, in order to reject the probative value of the above-mentioned material, a careful determination should be made by examining closely whether there are other reasonable circumstances that are contrary to it.

2. The reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below are as follows: ① The person who is the title holder of the land in this case’s situation is not the plaintiffs’ Y, but the former land cadastre.