Presumption of ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the repayment due to farmland distribution;

If a transfer registration of ownership has been made for any land due to completion of repayment, it shall be presumed that the procedure for distribution of farmland was legitimate, and it shall be presumed that the distributor occupied and cultivated the land before and after the distribution of farmland.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 16-2 of the Farmland Reform Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Korea Electric Power Corporation Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant

Defendant 1 and 10 Defendants (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 91Na14208 delivered on September 17, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

1. According to the adopted evidence, the lower court: (a) determined that the Plaintiff’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 4 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 5’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 5’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1 and the non-party 3’s land.

If a transfer registration of ownership has been made for any land due to completion of repayment, it shall be presumed that the procedure for distribution of farmland was lawful, and it shall be presumed that the distributor occupied the land before and after the distribution of farmland (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1420, Mar. 11, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 90Da13512, 13529, Apr. 12, 1991).

In the case of this case, as recognized by the court below, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendants against the land of this case is sought by a judgment ordering the State to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the completion of repayment, and such judgment has been completed by such final judgment, it shall not be deemed that the fact of farmland

Upon examination of the evidence adopted by the court below, it is difficult to deem that the land of this case is not farmland subject to distribution at the time of distribution of farmland, or that there is no distribution to the deceased non-party. Rather, according to the evidence No. 1-27 of the evidence No. 1-27 of this case, the fact that the state litigation performer completed reimbursement as alleged by the Defendants in the lawsuit claiming ownership transfer against the country of the defendants, and the evidence No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 3 is a judgment ordering the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of payment according to the above evidence No. 1-19 (Cr. 19), 22-23 (Cr. 14), 24-25 (Cr. 14), 26 (Cr. 1), and 2-2 (C. 46) of the certificate No. 2 (C. 1974) of this case, the non-party's farmland reform that was equivalent to the above non-party's farmland reform at the time of this case can be omitted.

The fact-finding of the judgment below shall not be erroneous in the rules of evidence. The grounds for the argument are as follows.

2. The court below acknowledged that the Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s telegraph, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on February 24, 1962 as to the above (name 6 omitted) No. 472, which was prior to the division on June 24, 1974, and had possession in good faith and without negligence since that time, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s telegraph, had been completed, the court below held that since the acquisition by prescription on February 24, 1972 was completed on the above land, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd., the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants was in accordance

However, there is no clear evidence to deem that the Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s telegraph, occupied the instant land as above recognition, and so long as it is deemed that the instant land was distributed as farmland pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, since February 24, 1962, the farmland distribution date, to recognize that the said land was occupied by the Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd., Ltd., the said company should be deemed to have clarified the developments leading up to the new occupation of the said land, and there is no evidence as to

As such, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation. The grounds for appeal are with merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)