(a) the meaning of “definite” as stipulated in Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act;

(b) Validity of distribution of farmland to the above soil without going through the procedure for recognition of the above soil as prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

(a) The term “debris” as referred to in Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act refers to land necessary for the protection of a grave, so long as it is appropriated for the management or removal of a grave, even if it is collected from the cultivator for the purpose of the protection of a grave.

B. At the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, farmland existing overland is naturally excluded from government purchase or distribution even if it does not go through the above-mentioned procedure as stipulated in Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and even if there are distribution procedures for such above-mentioned farmland, it shall be null and void.

(b)Article 6(b) of the Farmland Reform Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 69Da1782 delivered on February 10, 1970 (Gong1991, 456) 90Da6682 delivered on December 11, 1990

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

B. Before the retirement of SIS SIS SIS

Gwangju High Court Decision 92Na6074 delivered on April 23, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The term "definite land" under Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act refers to the land necessary for the protection of graves, and even if it is collected from farmers for the management or accommodation of graves, it is so long as it is appropriated for the management or accommodation of graves. In addition, the farmland existing overland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act is naturally excluded from the government purchase or distribution even without going through the above-mentioned procedure under Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and even if there is a distribution procedure for the above-mentioned land, it shall be null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da6682, Dec. 11, 1990; 69Da1782, Feb. 10, 1970).

We examine the reasoning of the judgment of the court below based on the records. The court below acknowledged the fact that the deceased non-party 1 received the land of this case pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act and completed repayment on December 30, 1962, and the part 55 square meters in the attached drawing "B" and the part 55 square meters in the attached drawing among the land of this case, which are the land of this case, for the protection of the tombstones of the defendant clan located adjacent to the defendant clan, including the tombstones inside and outside 2 and outside 30, that the income of this case was appropriated for the protection management and trial expenses of the above graves. The above portion of the "B" is not a purchase under the Farmland Reform Act, but the above part of the farmland distribution procedure under the name of the above non-party 1, even if it was conducted, it is just and acceptable to determine that there was no error of law in the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the above discussion under the Farmland Reform Act due to the mistake of facts and there is no reason for the judgment beyond the scope of adjudication.

2. Since farmland was purchased by the government under the Farmland Reform Act, it cannot be concluded that the previous possession is converted into the possession of a third party, and it is not possible to conclude that it cannot be subject to prescriptive acquisition. Accordingly, even if the land of this case was subject to farmland distribution, the court below is justified in holding that the defendant clan acquired ownership by occupying the portion of "B" among the land of this case from August 14, 1964 where the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the above non-party 1 in the name of the above non-party 1 as the intention to own and openly and openly for 20 years or longer, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to argue

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)