A. Whether the above soil is subject to prescriptive acquisition (affirmative)

B. In a case where the registration of ownership transfer for farmland has been completed, whether the matters concerning the certification of the office to which the farmland is located are subject to ex officio investigation (negative)

A. It cannot be deemed that the land in dispute was registered in the above-mentioned register as the above-mentioned land and is not subject to prescriptive acquisition.

B. Even if part of the land in dispute is farmland, it is presumed that there was proof of the government office at the seat of the transaction of farmland as long as the registration of ownership transfer was completed, the matters concerning such proof is not an ex officio investigation.

A. Article 245(1)/B of the Civil Act; Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 90Da8459 decided Feb. 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1071), Supreme Court Decision 90Da8343 decided Jul. 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2134)

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Daejeon District Court Decision 89Na6950 delivered on August 21, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the land of this case was inherited by the plaintiff on the grounds of the reasons stated in its ruling that the deceased non-party 1 was the original deceased non-party 1, and that the deceased non-party 2, his father, had built one house on the part of the land of this case and resided there on September 30, 195 with the consent of the deceased non-party 3, who was the deceased's father, and on June 25, 1961, he purchased the above land from the person who was the non-party 1, who was the property successor of the above non-party 1, the non-party 4, the above non-party 1, who purchased it on June 15, 196, he occupied the above land as a garden as a site for the above house, and he died on February 17, 1971, the defendant acquired it solely by division among co-inheritors and occupied it until now, and did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition by prescription or the record.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the land in this case was registered in the upper land register as the above land and it is not subject to prescriptive acquisition. Even if a part of the land in this case is farmland, it is presumed that there was proof of the government office for the transaction of farmland as long as the registration of ownership transfer was completed, the matters of proof is not the matter to be examined ex officio, and even if examining the record, the plaintiff did not have an assertion against it. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)