The validity of a case where farmland is trusted in trust to a person who has no purpose of self-defensing.

If farmland is simply registered in the title trust of farmland to a person who has no own or own will and the cultivation is still continued by the truster, even if there is proof of the agency where the farmland is located, the trust will eventually be null and void the resolution of the defects in the cause.

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

Park Jong-man

Maximum South and 1 other

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na602 delivered on April 16, 1965, Seoul High Court Decision 64Na602 delivered on July 16, 1965

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil District Court.

As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney:

In its reasoning explanation, the court below determined that the registration in the name of the defendant Kim Young-ok was legitimate and that the transfer registration in the name of the defendant Kim Young-ok was legitimate and that the registration in the name of the defendant was completed after purchasing the original land and completing the registration procedure.

However, according to the purport of oral argument, although the plaintiff asserted that this land was owned by the plaintiff's deceased spawn and that this land was inherited and cultivated until now, the original judgment did not make any judgment thereon. If this land is farmland, such as the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff, even if it is a title trust, it should be a legal transfer of farmland, so it should be proved under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act. According to Article 51 (f) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act, it is reasonable to interpret that a person who intends to acquire farmland must do so or have the intention of self-young. If the above person's own land or the government office did not have proof of the location of the above regulations, it should not be viewed that the above farmland is transferred to the defendant's spawn and thus, it cannot be viewed that there is no possibility that the registration of ownership transfer is valid for the plaintiff's own property under the name of Kim Jong-nam, and if the above land does not have any special reason for invalidation of ownership transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff.

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

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)