Reporting on self-owned farmland and commencement of possession independently;

If farmland in cultivation is reported as self-owned farmland after the promulgation and enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the intention of ownership is expressed, and it is registered as self-owned farmland on the farmland table, it is excluded from farmland distribution pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, and it is paid and occupied, it can be recognized as self-owned.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Seoul Central District Court (74Gahap3749) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

With respect to the plaintiff, 3/8 of 60 to 195 of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 60 to 60 to 195, 2/8 of 2/8 of 3, 3, 4, and 5 of 2/8 of 1/8 of 1/8 of 1/8 of 1/8 of 1/8 of 1/8 of 1/8 of 1/8 of 1968 of 41564 of 1/27 of 1968

Litigation Costs are assessed against the Defendants.

Judgment like the Disposition

The purport of the claim was originally owned by Nonparty 1, as stated in the purport of the claim, at KRW 60,00,00,000 (hereinafter referred to as this case's real estate) were originally owned by Nonparty 1. The registration of transfer of the above co-ownership shares was completed before the Defendants. The above registration of transfer to the Defendants was made by the Defendants by the deceased Nonparty 2, his predecessor, and the deceased Nonparty 1 became the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 6282,68,00,00 Seoul Civil Court No. 6282. Nonparty 1, who was the Defendant, was determined by the judgment of the court in favor of the Defendants on February 5, 1943, and the fact that the registration of transfer of co-ownership shares was completed by the deceased Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1, who was the owner of the above non-party 2,3,4,000 shares of the deceased non-party 1,7,000,000 won and the testimony of his father.

The Defendants, first, on February 5, 1943, died on June 8, 1965 from the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 2, who is the husband of the Defendant 5 and the father of the remaining Defendants, purchased this real estate from the deceased non-party 1, but failed to complete the registration of the ownership transfer, and thus, the Defendants jointly inherited the above property. Since the above defendant's co-ownership transfer registration in the front of the defendant asserted that it is effective in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, the above defendant's co-ownership transfer registration in the front of the defendant was proved to be valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the non-party 2 purchased this real estate from the deceased non-party 1 on February 5, 1943 is not presumed to be disputes over the above evidence Nos. 3-2,5,6 (Wing up, 2, and 3), Eul evidence No. 2 (the record and reasoning of the indictment) and evidence No. 3-2 (the evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 3) of the defendants are presumed to be found to be identical to the above. 6.

Next, even if Non-Party 2, who is the inheritee of the Defendants, did not purchase this real estate again, Non-Party 2, who cultivated the above real estate from February 1943 and was promulgated by the Farmland Reform Act, had reported this real estate as self-owned farmland on April 8, 1965 and continued to occupy it openly with the intention of possession from that time, and Non-Party 2 died on June 8, 1965. The heir acquired the right of possession by inheritance, and continuously acquired the ownership by the expiration of the prescriptive acquisition period as of April 1970, as well as the registration in accordance with the substantive relations, the above co-ownership transfer registration in the name of the Defendants was also effective since Non-Party 2 did not conflict with the above real estate establishment, and Non-Party 1, Non-Party 4, non-Party 2, who had reported the above real estate as non-party 1, as well as Non-Party 6, who had been aware of possession of the entire document as a witness of public performance or non-party 1, who had no dispute.

Therefore, the deceased non-party 2 and the Defendants, their inheritors, as to the real estate in this case, shall be deemed to have expired the prescriptive acquisition period as of April 1970 on which the 20th anniversary of the possession in peace and openly and with the intention of possession from April 1950 reported as the farmland in this case, and as of April 1970 on which the prescriptive acquisition period has expired, and the right to claim registration for the acquisition of ownership of the real estate in this case has expired. Accordingly, even if there was a defect caused by a judgment against the deceased person in this procedure, the above transfer registration in front of the Defendants of the real estate in this case shall be deemed to be valid registration in accordance with the substantive legal

Therefore, the plaintiff's principal claim against the defendant in this case against the defendant on the ground that the registration of the transfer of co-ownership against the defendant in this case is null and void shall be dismissed. Accordingly, the original judgment which accepted the plaintiff's claim is unfair, and since the defendant's appeal is with merit, the original judgment is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The bearing of litigation costs shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge)