[1] In a case where not only the document stating the necessary matters for the confirmation or repayment of the farmland subject to distribution but also the owner’s entry in the compensation document is consistent, whether the document constitutes a valuable material to acknowledge that the ownership of the land was transferred to the nominal owner at the time of distribution of farmland (affirmative)

[2] Whether farmland ownership shall be reverted to the original owner in a case where the Government's purchase of farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act becomes final and conclusive that farmland will not be distributed thereafter (affirmative)

[3] The ownership ownership ownership of distributed farmland, the payment of which has not been completed within the grace period under Article 3 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act ( December 22, 1994)

[4] Whether the presumption of right is recognized in the entry of the owner of a carded land cadastre newly prepared after the enforcement of the aforementioned Act by the competent authority without any legal basis, which was arbitrarily restored by the competent authority prior to the enforcement of the Cadastral Act wholly amended on December 31, 1975 (negative)

[5] Whether the right presumption is recognized in a public disclosure protocol for restoration of official cadastral records (negative)

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act (Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), Articles 8, 11, and 13 / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act (Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 11 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act / [3] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 186 of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 8352 of Apr. 11, 2007), Article 22, Article 3, Article 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 478 of the Farmland Act No. 194 of Dec. 27, 194 of the former Farmland Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2012Da91354 Decided June 27, 2013 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da45778 Decided May 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1500) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 91Da6399 Decided January 21, 1992 (Gong192, 874), Supreme Court Decision 2013Da202878 Decided July 11, 2013 (Gong2013Ha, 1451) / [5] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da24797 Decided August 24, 2006

Plaintiff (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-jin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee So-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Na35884 decided January 7, 2014

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. Whether it was enacted by Act No. 31 of Jun. 21, 1949, and was repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) is written as a prop on the farmland list, which is the fundamental document of the procedure for farmland distribution under the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 2 subparag. 1 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994), and it is not presumed that a person has ownership under substantive law, and it is not presumed that the farmland repayment ledger or the distribution farmland ledger, which is a document prepared in order to enter matters necessary for repayment after the completion of the procedure for the confirmation of distribution farmland, cannot be acknowledged as the presumption of the change of right in the statement. Accordingly, even if a person who is not a person

However, there is no limitation to using the descriptions of documents related to the distribution of farmland as data for fact-finding as data for the alteration of rights, and there is no limitation to using the same as data for fact-finding as data for the distribution of farmland. In addition, in cases where the landowner purchased farmland from the State agrees with the owner in the application for compensation, the prop statement, the land price assessment report, and the land price securities prepared in the course of receiving compensation by the landowner, such documents shall be deemed as a valuable material to recognize the fact that the land ownership was transferred to the titleholder at least at the time of the distribution of farmland. In addition, in order to reject the probative value of material material in such a case, it shall be carefully determined by examining whether there are other reasonable circumstances inconsistent with the above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da91354, Jun. 27, 2013).

On the other hand, the government's purchase of farmland which is not self-sufficient under the former Farmland Reform Act is a measure taken under the condition that the farmland will not be distributed later, and if the farmland is determined not to be distributed later, the ownership shall be reverted to the original owner regardless of whether the farmland compensation has been paid or not.

In addition, the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994 and enforced on January 1, 1996) repealed Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act and the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Projects (hereinafter “Special Support Act”). Article 3 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act provides that “The redemption and registration, etc. of farmland for distributed farmland at the time of the enforcement of this Act shall be completed within three years from the enforcement date of the previous Farmland Reform Act and the Special Support Act.” This provision provides that “The payment and registration, etc. of farmland shall be completed within three years from the enforcement date of the Farmland Act.” According to this provision, there is no provision on the basis of the redemption of farmland after the lapse of three years from the enforcement date of the Farmland Act, even if farmland is repaid, it is impossible to acquire ownership under the provisions of the Farmland Reform Act and the Special Support Act, so it is no longer possible to obtain ownership of farmland within three years from the enforcement date of the Farmland Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the ownership of farmland is distributed to 2008.

2. 가. 원심이 인용한 제1심판결 이유와 기록에 의하면, ① 수원군 성호면 두곡리에 관한 토지조사부에는 과천군 남면 산본동에 주소를 둔 소외 1이 위 (주소 1 생략) 답 2,354평(이하 ‘이 사건 사정토지’라고 한다)을 사정받은 것으로 기재되어 있는 사실, 이 사건 사정토지는 1958. 12. 31. (주소 2 생략) 답 462평(이하 ‘이 사건 분할 전 토지’라고 한다), (주소 3 생략) 답 740평 및 (주소 4 생략) 답 1,152평으로 분할되었고, 대한민국은 1961. 5. 31. 이 사건 분할 전 토지에 관하여 소유권보존등기를 마친 사실, ② 이후 수원군 성호면 두곡리는 행정구역이 화성군 오산면 두곡리, 화성군 오산읍 두곡리, 오산시 두곡동으로 순차 변경되었고, 이 사건 분할 전 토지는 원심 판시 부동산의 표시 기재 각 부동산(이하 ‘이 사건 각 토지’라고 한다)으로 분할된 사실, ③ 구 농지개혁법에 의한 농지분배 당시 작성된 분배농지부에는 이 사건 분할 전 토지에 관하여 피보상자란에 탑리에 주소를 둔 소외 2가, 분배농가란에 소외 3이, (주소 3 생략) 답 740평에 관하여 피보상자란에 위 소외 2가, 분배농가란에 탑리에 주소를 둔 소외 4가 각 기재되어 있고, 위 각 토지의 보상여부란에는 한자로 ‘여’라고 기재되어 있는 사실, ④ 1950년경 작성된 토지대장 및 등기부대조원부의 농지소표란에는 이 사건 사정토지에 관하여 소유자란에 탑리에 주소를 둔 소외 2가 기재되어 있고, 수배자(수배자)란은 공란으로 되어 있으며, 토지대장표시란에는 이 사건 분할 전 토지의 지번과 지목 및 그 면적을 의미하는 것으로 보이는 ‘-1 답 462’와 의미를 정확히 알기 어려운 숫자 및 ‘소외 3’으로 보이는 한자가, 등기부갑구란에는 ‘무’라고 흐릿하게 각 기재되어 있는 사실, ⑤ 1950년경 작성된 수배자 소외 4의 분배농지상환대장 및 상환대장부표에는 (주소 3 생략) 답 750평에 관하여 상환한 것으로 기재되어 있고, 이 사건 분할 전 토지의 상환대장은 제출되어 있지 아니한 사실, ⑥ 1950년경 작성된 분할지번별조서에는 이 사건 사정토지 중 답 750평에 관하여는 수배자란에 소외 4가 기재되어 있고, 1,604평에 관하여는 ‘자작지’로 기재되어 있는 사실, ⑦ 신고자로 소외 2가 기재되어 있다가 원고로 정정된 지주신고서에는 (주소 1 생략) 답 700평이 기재되어 있고, 여기에는 ‘경기도 화성군 (주소 5 생략)에 주소를 둔 원고에 대한 지가증권발급에 있어 부정사실이 발생할 경우 민·형사상의 책임을 진다.’는 내용이 기재된 위 탑리에 주소를 둔 소외 6, 7 공동명의의 1951. 11. 2.자 보증서와, 화성군 오산면장 소외 8 작성의 위 소외 6, 7에 대한 재산증명원이 각 첨부되어 있는 사실, ⑧ 지가증권발급조서에는 화성군 오산면 탑리 127에 주소를 둔 피보상자 원고에게 화성 오산 소재 농지 답 2,197평, 전 212평에 대하여 지가증권을 발급한다는 내용이 기재되어 있고, 경기도 산업국장은 1960. 9. 24., 같은 해 11. 3., 같은 해 12. 14. 3회에 걸쳐 화성군수에게 지가증권번호 42128호로 원고에게 발급된 증권을 회수할 것을 독촉한 사실, ⑨ 이 사건 사정토지에 관한 지적공부가 6·25 전쟁 때 소멸되자 이를 복구할 목적으로 작성된 지적공부복구 공시조서에는 소유자란에 과천군 남면 산본동에 거주하는 소외 1이 기재되어 있고, 이후 위 사정토지 중 일부인 이 사건 분할 전 토지에 관하여 작성된 한자부책식 토지대장의 소유자란에도 과천군 남면 산본동에 거주하는 소외 1이라고 기재되어 있으며, 역시 이 사건 사정토지로부터 분할된 위 (주소 3 생략) 토지에 관하여 작성된 한자부책식 토지대장의 소유자란에도 소외 1이 기재되어 있다가, 대한민국, 소외 9 순으로 변경되어 있고, (주소 3 생략) 토지에 관하여 1977. 7. 1. 작성된 카드식 토지대장에는 1962. 9. 3. 소외 9가 소유권을 이전받은 것으로 기재되어 있으며, 위 (주소 4 생략) 토지에 관하여 작성된 한자부책식 토지대장의 소유자란에도 소외 1이 기재되어 있다가 이후 소외 10으로 변경되어 있고, (주소 4 생략) 토지에 관하여 1977. 7. 1. 작성된 카드식 토지대장에는 소유자란이 공란으로 되어 있으며, 이 사건 분할 전 토지에 관하여 1977. 7. 1. 작성된 카드식 토지대장에는 1961. 5. 31. 대한민국이 소유권을 취득한 것으로 기재되어 있는 사실, ⑩ 소외 2는 1950. 7. 5. 사망하여 원고가 단독상속하였는데, 원고는 수원지방법원 2011가단51591호 로 대한민국을 상대로 하여 이 사건 각 토지에 관한 소유권보존등기말소청구의 소를 제기하였고, 위 법원은 2012. 4. 24. 소외 2가 소외 1로부터 이 사건 각 토지를 승계취득하였음을 이유로 대한민국은 원고에게 이 사건 각 토지에 관하여 소유권보존등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하라는 판결을 선고하였으며, 위 판결은 그 무렵 그대로 확정되었고, 한편 소외 11, 12, 13 및 피고 1(이하, 이들을 ‘소외 1의 상속인들’이라 한다)도 소외 1이 이 사건 각 토지의 소유권을 원시취득하였고 자신들이 이를 승계하였다고 주장하면서 대한민국을 상대로 하여 위 법원 2011가합8457호 로 소유권보존등기말소등기등 청구의 소를 제기하였고, 위 법원은 2012. 1. 12. 대한민국은 이 사건 각 토지에 관하여 소외 1의 상속인들에게 진정명의회복을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하라는 판결을 선고하였으며, 위 판결도 그 무렵 그대로 확정된 사실, 원고는 자신의 승소판결에 의한 소유권이전등기청구권을 보전하기 위하여 소외 1의 상속인들을 대위하여 이 사건 각 토지에 관하여 위 상속인들 명의의 소유권보존등기절차를 마쳤고, 피고 1은 2012. 7. 27. 이 사건 각 토지에 관하여 2012. 5. 31. 상속협의분할을 원인으로 하여 단독 명의로 소유권경정등기를 마친 사실 등을 알 수 있다.

B. Based on the above facts, the court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court which dismissed the plaintiff's claim based on the following facts: (a) only the name of Nonparty 1, the assessment titleholder, was entered in the land cadastre of this case, and the name of Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff or the plaintiff was not entered in the land cadastre of this case; (b) the area of the land stated in the report prepared in the name of Nonparty 2 and the Plaintiff, which is considerably different from the actual area of the land before subdivision of this case (the answer 462 square meters); (c) the land was divided with the land before subdivision of this case in the distribution farmland redemption ledger; (d) the land was not entered in the farmland subdivision, the land price bond, etc., which is closely related to who is the owner of the purchased land among the books or documents prepared in the course of farmland reform; and (d) there was no other document submitted in this case and there was no other way to find otherwise.

3. However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to accept the above judgment of the court below.

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the record, i.e., the farmland register, land cadastre, and register comparison register, lot number registry, prop report, land registration statement, and all relevant documents prepared at the time of distribution of farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act, and the owner of each of the instant land was indicated as Nonparty 2 or the Plaintiff. Nonparty 6 and 7 who resides near each of the instant land at the time of issuance of land price securities was submitted a guarantee letter, and the property certificate was confirmed by the Property Certification Board, and the confirmation was received at the jurisdiction of the Property Certification Board, the land in the instant case was under circumstances by Defendant 1, but Nonparty 1 was disposed of before the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act and lost its ownership. At the time of distribution of farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act, Nonparty 2, the decedent, was owned by Nonparty 3, the Plaintiff’s decedent, and was distributed to Nonparty 3, but it was sufficient to deem that the ownership was returned to Nonparty 2, the owner of the instant land.

On the other hand, the circumstances cited by the lower court as the circumstances in which it is difficult to recognize Nonparty 2’s acquisition by succession are difficult to deem that the above farmland distribution-related materials reached the extent of rejecting the probative value.

① First of all, since the enforcement of the Cadastral Act (Act No. 2801, hereinafter “Revised Cadastral Act”) wholly amended on December 31, 1975 entered into force, matters relating to the owner of the land cadastre shall not be registered for recovery without resorting to the real estate register or final judgment [Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act (Presidential Decree No. 8110, May 7, 1976) and Article 6 of the Addenda], even if the name of the owner was entered in the land cadastre arbitrarily restored for the convenience of taxation without any legal basis before the enforcement of the above amended Cadastral Act, the presumption of right cannot be recognized. In addition, if the entry of the owner’s column of the previous land cadastre, which is not recognized as having the capacity of presumption of right as above, has been changed from the new card cadastre newly prepared after the enforcement of the amended Cadastral Act, it shall also be deemed that there is no presumption of right as to the owner of the new land cadastre’s right, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the new owner’s right has been lost without any legal basis or 207.

The facts indicated by Nonparty 1 as the owner in the official cadastral record recovery statement and the old land cadastre concerning the land before the partition of this case are as legally determined by the court below. However, according to the records, the official cadastral record recovery statement was prepared without any legal basis for the purpose of restoring the land cadastre when the land cadastre was extinguished at the time of the Korean War of 6.25, and the former land cadastre was also deemed to have been transferred and restored. As such, each of the above facts cannot be proven to have been still owned by Nonparty 1 at the time of distributing farmland to the land before the partition of this case, in addition to the fact that Nonparty 1 is the name of the assessment of the land in this case.

② In addition, the area of the land indicated in the prop report is not the area of the land before subdivision, but rather the area of the land before subdivision of this case, it can be deemed that Nonparty 4 completed reimbursement by Nonparty 740 square meters. Even if there is an error or change in the area, it is insufficient to reverse the fact that Nonparty 2 succeeded to the land before subdivision of this case, and further, Nonparty 1 did not prove that he still is the owner of the land at the time of distributing the farmland of this case.

③ Meanwhile, according to the Plaintiff’s allegation in the grounds of appeal, if Nonparty 3 renounced the repayment of the land before the partition, it is likely that the repayment register prepared by the parties to the portion of the farmland would not be prepared. Therefore, the lower court should have stated in the farmland distribution division the following: (a) the developments leading up to which the repayment register had not been prepared despite the existence of the land before the partition; and (b) the meaning of the “self-statement” as to the land before the subdivision and the area of the land at 1,604 square meters (which appears to be added up to the area of the land before subdivision and the

④ Since the farmland tax table is the fundamental document of the farmland distribution procedure, if the farmland tax table is prepared for the farmland, it can be presumed that the farmland has undergone the procedure for the confirmation of distribution of farmland under Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, unless its probative value is denied due to special circumstances, such as where the farmland was forged or false, even if it was made at any time, not at the time of distribution of farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act, based on objective and reasonable evidence, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da25472, Mar. 26, 1993). If the farmland was distributed for a certain land and the farmland tax table was prepared for the farmland tax table, it is presumed that the farmland was lawfully investigated into the site, and thus it cannot be readily concluded that it is not farmland subject to distribution without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 88Da4628, Apr. 11, 1989).

The farmland lot column in the land cadastre and the register comparison (Evidence No. 10) submitted by the Plaintiff is not itself a farmland lot under Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, but it is highly likely that the contents of the farmland lot have been changed as it is. Thus, there is no limitation that Nonparty 2 would have acquired the land before the division in this case by taking into account all other circumstances and circumstances as a factual basis on the fact that Nonparty 2 succeeded to and acquired the land before the division in this case, and there is also a submission of the land lot certificate (Evidence No. 12) as to the land which appears to be the land in this case. Thus, it cannot be said that Nonparty 2 did not submit the farmland lot or the land lot certificate, and it cannot be said that Nonparty 2 succeeded to the land before the division in this case.

Therefore, the lower court determined that it is insufficient to recognize that Nonparty 2 acquired the land prior to the instant subdivision by succession and owned it, solely based on its reasoning, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the probative value of farmland distribution-related documents, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)