Whether the farmland trusted in title prior to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act constitutes a non-self-owned farmland

Even though farmland cultivator at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is the owner of the farmland on the register, if the farmland is not the actual owner but the title trustee on the registration, it should be considered that the farmland is transferred to the government as a non-self-self-farmland.

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Original Branch Court of Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (Law No. 66A102 delivered)

Supreme Court Decision 68Da76 Decided February 27, 1968

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim against this part shall be dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall execute the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on February 7, 1964 as the defendant's receipt of the original state branch of Chuncheon District Court No. 967 on February 20, 1962 as the plaintiff's receipt of the original state branch of Chuncheon District Court No. 1135 on January 27, 1964 as the plaintiff's receipt of the same court No. 1135 on February 7, 1964.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

On February 7, 1964, the defendant implemented the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on January 27, 1964, as set forth in No. 1135 of the receipt of the original branch of the Chuncheon District Court's original branch on February 7, 1964 with respect to 1100 Yong-gun, Gangwon-do.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances, and the defendant's attorney has the same judgment as the disposition.

With respect to the 1,834 Es. 628 Es. 1100 Es. 1,100 Es. 1,100 Es. from the plaintiff to the defendant at the time when the Farmland Reform Act enters into force, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that Non-party 1, the plaintiff was cultivated at the time when the farmland Reform Act enters into force, and that Non-party 1 died on January 27, 1959.

Since each farmland was originally owned by Nonparty 1 and sold by Nonparty 2 under the name of Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 6, the Plaintiff’s transfer registration for Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 2 was not enforced each year for six years, which was at the time of Non-Party 1’s sale of the farmland, and the Plaintiff’s transfer registration for the first five-year period was not established. The Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration for each of the above 1,834 pieces was issued as of January 17, 1947, and each of the above 198 pieces of farmland was destroyed on June 25, 1953, and each of the above 9 pieces of farmland was transferred to the Defendant for the first five-year period. The Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration for each of the above 9-year farmland was transferred to the Defendant for the first five-year period, without any dispute over the ownership transfer registration for each of the above 19-year farmland. Thus, the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration for each of the above 9-year farmland was transferred to the Defendant.

Therefore, even if a farmer of farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is the owner of the farmland on the register, if he is not the actual owner and only the title trustee on the register, his farmland shall be deemed to be transferred to the Government as a non-self-owned farmland. As such, with respect to 1,834 of the farmland in this case, it cannot be recognized that he had ownership to the non-party 1, the plaintiff's prior owner of the farmland in this case, because he was transferred to the non-party 2 as seen above, along with the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, as well as the Government as a non-self-owned farmland in this case (it can be known that the non-party 1 did not have any objection to the application for distribution of the farmland in this case, and the above non-party 1 did not acquire the ownership of the farmland in this case by the distribution of the above farmland in this case) and the non-party 628 of this case, as seen above, it cannot be recognized that the ownership was transferred to the non-party 1, the plaintiff's prior owner.

In other words, the plaintiff asserts that the farmland is distributed to the non-party 1 even though the non-party 2 had been cultivated by the non-party 1 at the time when the Farmland Reform Act was implemented, even though the non-party 2 had title trust prior to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, among the farmland in this case, the non-party 1,834 argued that the farmland is not the land of the same non-party even though it was not distributed to the non-party. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the farmland is not the land of the same non-party, but it is nothing more than the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1, the decedent, was in a position to acquire the ownership by receiving the distribution of the farmland. In other words, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's claim under the premise that there was a real right such as the right to claim for registration, which is based on such a premise that

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for principal action shall be dismissed because there is no reason to view it as a part of the plaintiff's claim and therefore, since the original judgment partially different from this conclusion is unfair, the part against the defendant in the original judgment pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed, and since the plaintiff's appeal is without reason, it shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the same Act and it shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and

Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)