If a registration of ownership transfer has been made due to the completion of the repayment with respect to farmland, it shall be issued at the time of issuance of the certificate of repayment, and even by the presumption of registration, the distribution of farmland shall be presumed lawful by following the procedure prescribed in Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act. This presumption shall not vary depending on whether the total area of the distributed farmland exceeds three information.

If a registration of ownership transfer has been made due to the completion of the repayment with respect to farmland, it shall be issued at the time of issuance of the certificate of repayment, and even by the presumption of registration, the distribution of farmland shall be presumed lawful by following the procedure prescribed in Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act. This presumption shall not vary depending on whether the total area of the distributed farmland exceeds three information.

Article 16-2 of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 186 of the Civil Act; Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na1710 decided September 9, 1971

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The second ground for appeal by the defendant Kim Jong-chul is examined.

According to the records, the plaintiff's legal representative asserted that the farmland distribution is null and void because he did not go through the procedure under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act among the grounds for the claim of this case at the time of the closure of the pleadings in the first instance trial. However, the plaintiff's legal representative did not assert that the plaintiff's legal representative did not assert that the farmland distribution was null and void since he did not go through the procedure under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act at the time of the third pleading in the original trial, and that the plaintiff's legal representative did not assert that the plaintiff's legal representative did not assert that the plaintiff's legal representative did not assert that the plaintiff's legal representative did not assert that the plaintiff's legal representative did not assert the above withdrawal at the time of the third pleading in the original trial or that the plaintiff's legal representative did not assert that the plaintiff's legal representative did not assert any error in the facts that the court below did not present at the time of the second pleading at the time of the pleading in the first instance trial.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 as well as the grounds of appeal by the defendant Kim Jong-jo are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that the distribution of farmland without taking the procedure under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act is null and void in the distribution of farmland under Article 32 of the same Act, and since only three farmland can be cultivated within the limit of 3 information, if the registration of transfer of ownership due to the completion of repayment is completed in relation to the distributed farmland, the distribution of farmland shall be presumed to be a lawful distribution in accordance with the procedure under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act if the total farmland area of the farm to which the farmland was distributed is within 3 information including the farmland. However, if the above 3 information is exceeded the above 3 information, the presumption of legitimate distribution in accordance with the above procedure shall not be presumed to be a distribution in the above farmland. The court below held that the defendants' distribution of farmland to the defendants exceeded 3 information after adding the farmland in this case to the farmland in this case. Thus, even if the ownership transfer registration was completed due to the completion of repayment, the defendants' legitimate distribution of the above farmland in this case's name shall not be acknowledged as a legitimate distribution of the above farmland distribution.

However, if the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of repayment of the farmland in this case, it can be determined that the issuance of the certificate was made. If so, the procedure for farmland distribution in this case is presumed to have been lawful (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da259, Jun. 20, 1963) and the acquisition of rights registered due to the presumption of registration was presumed to have been effective due to legitimate reasons. Therefore, the farmland in this case is presumed to have been legitimately distributed to the Defendants by following the procedure under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act, and such presumption is presumed to have been lawful because the total amount of the farmland distributed by the Defendants exceeds 3 information, which can be cultivated by 1 farm, and cannot be different from that of the above farmland, and if the distribution was unlawful without following the above procedure, it cannot be concluded that the Defendants had the burden of proof as to the distribution of the farmland in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above presumption that the Defendants did not have any legitimate reason to prove the distribution of farmland in this case.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the same Kim Chang-chul, the original judgment shall be reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)