(1) The validity of the registration of transfer of ownership only for the purpose of

With respect to farmland, ownership of the farmland shall not be acquired unless there is a self-definite or self-definite intent. However, in a case where only the ownership transfer registration was passed through without a self-definite or self-definite intent for the purpose of debt security, even if there is a proof of the location government office under the provisions of paragraph (2) of this Article, such certification is not consistent with the substance, and the ownership transfer registration shall

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1043 Decided July 27, 1965

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and seven others

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3070 decided February 1, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3070 decided February 1, 1968

The part concerning the real estate recorded in the list 1.3 in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The appeal on the remainder is dismissed.

As to the ground of appeal No. 2-2 by the Plaintiff’s Attorney:

Since the registration of ownership transfer of real estate shall be presumed to be legitimate when the registration of ownership transfer of real estate has passed through the registration, in the registration of ownership transfer of the land No. 2 List, it shall be presumed that there has been proof of the office at the seat under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act. Therefore, in the case of this case where there is no evidence to prove that the registration has been legitimate, the judgment on the real estate recorded in the second list of the original judgment that recognized that the registration has been legitimate, and there

As to ground of appeal No. 3

In its explanation of its reasoning, with respect to the real estate recorded in the 13th and third list attached to the original judgment, Defendant 3 lent 380,000 won in money to Defendant 1, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant 3 via Defendant 2 through Defendant 2, and on the ground that the repayment of debts cannot be recognized, the original judgment rendered a decision that the Plaintiff is unable to request the Defendant to implement the procedure of registration of cancellation of the principal suit.

However, in the case of farmland, unless there is a self-definite or self-definite intent, the ownership of the farmland can not be acquired. In the case of farmland only through the ownership transfer registration only for the purpose of debt security without a self-definite or self-definite intent, there is proof of the seat office as provided by Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, but such proof is not consistent with the substance, and the cause of the ownership transfer registration is invalid unless it is self-definite or self-definite intent (see this case, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 65Da1043, Jul. 27, 1965). However, the original judgment was made not only against the defendant 3, but also against the defendant 2, and it is impossible to assert the cause of each ownership transfer registration against the defendant 2, and it is reasonable to reverse the part of the original judgment without the judgment as to the real estate list No. 1 and No. 21 of the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 406, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)