[1] The case holding that if the previous owner's column is different from the previous owner's farmland at the time, it can not be deemed as a distributed farmland, since it is not indicated in the farmland list, and the lot number recorded in the repayment ledger overlaps below the upper part, and the correction seal was not affixed while correcting the cadastral indication

[2] Whether a prop at the time of farmland reform can be readily concluded that the relevant farmland was distributed only with the fact that the prop submitted an application for compensation to the competent authority (negative)

[3] The validity of the distribution of farmland to a parcel of land without an application for permission for the above-mentioned land as a memorial land under Article 6 (1) 7 of the former Farmland Reform Act (negative)

[4] The nature of the possession by the possessor and his heir in a case where the possessor was in charge of another person's mountain and grave, etc. as a result of care (=the possession by the owner)

[1] The case holding that the farmland shall not be deemed to have been distributed in a case where it is not indicated in the farmland list as a distributor, and the lot number recorded in the repayment ledger overlaps upward, and the correction seal was not affixed while correcting the cadastral indication, and the entry in the former owner's column is different from that in the registered titleholder at the time

[2] Even though the props purchased farmland from the State prepared and submitted an application for compensation to receive compensation, all the farmland is not finally determined and treated as the farmland distributed.

[3] Under Article 6 (1) 7 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Farmland Act), a person shall be excluded from the purchase object of the government from the beginning within the scope of two parts per each grave protected as a memorial soil pursuant to Article 6 (1) 7 of the former Farmland Reform Act, and its distribution is null and void even without an application for the permission.

[4] In a case where the possessor took care of a mountain and grave for another person’s fleet, and managed it, the possessor’s possession of these land should be deemed as the possession from the beginning by the nature of the source of title, and the possession of the inheritor by inheritance, etc. is also deemed as the possession by succession to the nature of the inheritee, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

[1] Article 11 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994; Article 2 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act; Article 32 and Article 38 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 14835 of Dec. 22, 1995); Article 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act / [2] Article 13 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 14835 of Dec. 22, 1995; Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act; Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act / [4] Article 193, Article 199, Article 24 (1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da8198 delivered on January 14, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 706), Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 181), Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3370)/ [3] Supreme Court Decision 4294Da99 delivered on January 25, 1964 (No 10-1, 43), Supreme Court Decision 90Da682 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 456), Supreme Court Decision 90Da3979 delivered on September 24, 1993 (Gong1994, 197Ha decided on September 24, 297)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 96Na12450 delivered on August 29, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the judgment below

원심판결의 이유에 의하면, 원심은 거시 증거에 의하여, 이 사건 제2토지는 분할 전 김해시 ○○동 (지번 1 생략) 전 2,201평에서 분할되어 나온 분할 전 (지번 2 생략) 전 2,071평에서 1958. 12. 17. 다시 분할된 토지로서, 이에 관하여 구 부동산소유권이전등기등에관한특별조치법(법률 제3562호, 실효)에 의하여 1985. 4. 2. 피고 1 명의의 소유권이전등기가 경료된 사실, 이 사건 제3토지와 이 사건 제4토지는 원래 위 분할 전 (지번 1 생략) 전 2,201평에서 분할되어 나온 분할 전 (지번 2 생략) 전 2,054평에서 1963. 11. 15. 다시 분할된 (지번 3 생략) 전 394평과 분할 전 (지번 4 생략) 전 705평에서 분할되어 나온 (지번 5 생략) 전 650㎡가 1988. 1. 19. 합병되었다가 같은 날 다시 분할된 토지인데, 위 합병 전 (지번 3 생략) 토지와 (지번 5 생략) 토지에 관하여는 각 구 부동산소유권이전등기등에관한특별조치법(법률 제3094호, 실효)에 의하여 1980. 3. 24. 피고 4 명의의 소유권이전등기가 경료된 사실, 이 사건 제5토지 중 원심 판시 ㉮표시 부분은 원래 합병 전 위 ○○동 (지번 6 생략) 전 79㎡이었으나 1988. 8. 31. (지번 4 생략) 전 1,544㎡로 합병되었다가 같은 날 그 일부가 (지번 7 생략) 전 724㎡로 분할되어 나가고 남은 (지번 4 생략) 전 820㎡의 일부인데 위 합병 전 (지번 6 생략) 토지에 관하여 구 부동산소유권이전등기등에관한특별조치법(법률 제3562호, 실효)에 의하여 1985. 4. 2. 피고 1 명의로 소유권이전등기가 경료된 사실, 위 분할 전 (지번 1 생략) 전 2,201평과 같은 (지번 4 생략) 전 705평은 소외 1이 1917. 11. 30. 사정받아 그 명의로 1926. 2. 5. 소유권보존등기를 각 마쳤는데 위 소외 1이 1933. 11. 21. 사망하여 그의 장남인 소외 2가 호주상속인 겸 단독 재산상속인이 되었다가 위 소외 2 역시 1947. 11. 30. 사망함으로써 그에 앞서 사망한 그의 장남인 망 소외 3의 장남되는 원고가 위 소외 2의 호주상속인 겸 단독 재산상속인이 된 사실, 그런데 위 각 특별조치법에 의하여 경료된 피고 1, 피고 4의 위 각 소유권이전등기는 모두 소외 1로부터 매수하는 등으로 사실상 양수한 사실이 없음에도 불구하고 이들 토지를 위 소외 1로부터 매수하여 사실상 소유하고 있다는 내용의 보증서 및 이에 기한 확인서에 의하여 경료된 사실을 인정한 다음, 이러한 보증서 및 확인서는 그 권리변동의 원인이 되는 기재 내용이 진실에 부합하지 아니하는 허위의 보증서 등에 해당되어 이에 의하여 경료한 피고 1, 피고 4 명의의 위 각 소유권이전등기는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 원인 없는 무효의 등기라고 판단함과 아울러, (1) 피고 1이 이 사건 제2토지와 위 합병 전 (지번 6 생략) 전 79㎡를, 피고 4의 부(부)인 소외 4가 위 합병 전 (지번 3 생략) 전 394평과 (지번 5 생략) 전 605㎡를 각 국가로부터 농지개혁법상의 분배농지로서 분배받아 그 상환을 완료하였고, 피고 4는 위 (지번 3 생략), (지번 5 생략) 각 토지를 소외 4로부터 증여받았으므로 위 피고들 명의의 각 소유권이전등기는 실체적 권리관계에 부합하는 유효한 등기라는 피고들의 주장에 대하여는, 피고 1과 위 소외 4가 위 각 토지를 분배받아 상환완료하였다는 점을 인정할 증거가 없다는 이유로 이를 배척하고, (2) 위 분할 전 (지번 1 생략) 전 2,201평 및 (지번 4 생략) 전 705평은 해방 전부터 피고 1, 피고 4의 선대가 원고의 선대를 위하여 그 선산과 분묘 등을 돌보면서 이를 관리하여 오다가 농지개혁법이 시행될 무렵 피고 1은 분할 전 (지번 1 생략) 전 2,201평 중 제2토지와 위 (지번 6 생략) 전 79㎡에 해당하는 부분을, 위 소외 4는 위 (지번 1 생략) 토지 중 합병 전 (지번 3 생략) 전 394평에 해당하는 부분과 분할 전 (지번 4 생략) 전 705평 중 (지번 5 생략) 전 605㎡에 해당하는 부분을 각 소유의 의사로 평온·공연하게 이를 점유·경작하여 왔으므로 늦어도 김해시 소재 전체 분배농지에 대한 상환이 완료된 1967. 2. 22.경부터 20년이 경과한 1987. 2. 22.경 위 각 토지에 관하여는 피고 1 또는 위 소외 4로부터 그 점유를 승계한 피고 4를 위한 소유권 취득시효가 완성되었다 할 것이니 위 피고들 명의의 앞서 본 각 소유권이전등기는 실체적 권리관계에 부합하는 유효한 등기라는 피고들의 주장에 대하여도, 위 피고들 또는 위 소외 4가 위 각 토지 부분을 소유의 의사로 농지개혁법이 시행될 무렵부터 또는 1967. 2. 22.경부터 점유하였다거나 원고의 이 사건 제소일 이전까지 20년간 점유하여 왔다고 인정할 아무런 증거 없다는 이유로 배척하였다.

2. As to the part of the distributed farmland for which the reimbursement has been completed

First, according to the records and records, it is difficult to find out that the above non-party 4, the non-party 5's net number of the above non-party 5's land was non-party 1 and the non-party 4's number of the above non-party 5's land was non-party 1 and the non-party 4's number of the above non-party 6's land number of the non-party 5's lot number of the above non-party 4's land was non-party 1 and the non-party 5's number of the above non-party 4's lot number of the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's number of the non-party 5's land was non-party 9's number of the above non-party 4's lot number of the above non-party 4'. The non-party 4's number of the above non-party 9's lot number of the above non-party 4'.

Then, according to the records as to whether Defendant 1 received the distribution of 79 square meters prior to the merger with the land No. 2 of this case (number 6 omitted), the following facts are as follows: first, the land is not entered in the repayment ledger of Defendant 1; second, the farmland tax table (record 866 pages) on the land No. 2 of this case is not indicated as farmland subject to distribution; third, the land is not indicated as farmland subject to distribution; third, the number of 1,164 square meters prior to the merger (number 4 omitted) was registered on August 17, 1966 on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer was made on December 30, 196 (number 2-6 and recorded 61 square meters) on August 17, 196 (number 6 omitted); fourth, if these land is so parcels of land, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 was excluded from distribution or distribution as seen earlier.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to any mistake of facts or any distributed farmland due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the Supreme Court Decision 71Da2341 delivered on February 22, 1972 and Supreme Court Decision 95Da4007 delivered on April 26, 1996 cited in the theory of lawsuit is not appropriate to invoke it as it differs from the case in this case, and it is not appropriate to invoke it as it

3. As to the possession frequently

According to the records, Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 had been in management before the 2,201 square meters prior to the above division (number 1 omitted) and 705 square meters prior to the above 705 square meters prior to the above division (number 4 omitted), and they had been in possession of the mountain and grave for the plaintiff's fleet. Thus, the above Defendants' possession of these land is deemed to have been in possession from the beginning due to the nature of their title. The above Defendants' possession by inheritance, etc. also succeeded to the nature of the decedent's possession, unless there are special circumstances, and it is difficult to view that the land in this case was distributed to the above Defendants by the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act. As seen above, as long as there were no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants commenced possession of the land with new title or expressed their intention to own the land to the plaintiff, the above Defendants' possession of the land at the latest from the beginning of the distribution loan and the land in this case cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)