Enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and Suspension of Prescription

(a) The mere fact that farmland has been purchased and reverted to a country pursuant to this Article cannot be deemed to have been converted to that owned by the owner of the farmland without the intention of the owner of the farmland.

B. The mere fact that farmland was purchased and reverted to a country pursuant to Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act cannot be deemed to have been changed to the possession without the intention of possession by the occupant of the farmland.

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 162 of the Gu Residents Act

Kim Yong-won et al.

Sik-gu et al.

The Red Support in the First Instance, the Second Instance Seoul High Court Decision 63Na1072 delivered on June 9, 1964

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim that acquired ownership by the completion of the acquisition by prescription of the land in this case, and eventually, it was recognized that the farmland in this case was purchased and reverted to the defendant country at the same time under Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act as farmland without the landowner's own awareness, and even if the plaintiffs cultivated the farmland in this case from the first place, it cannot be said that the possession of the plaintiffs after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act was changed to the possession without

However, if the possession of the plaintiffs' land was owned frequently, it should be presumed that the intention of the owner of the land continued to exist, barring any special circumstance. In particular, even if the land was purchased and reverted at the same time as the enforcement of law pursuant to Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, the plaintiffs may be deemed to have occupied the land as the intention of the owner of the land continuously and as the intention of the owner of the land. However, even though the farmland was reverted to the defendant Eul under Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act, it cannot be concluded that the intent of the owner of the land was changed to the possession without the intention of the owner of the land due to its nature. However, in order to conclude this, it should have deliberated and decided on the special circumstance that the intent of the owner of the land was changed to the possession without the intention of the owner of the land. However, the judgment of the court below that did not go against the reasoning is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman