The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. It is written as a prop on the farmland list, which is the fundamental document of the procedure for distributing farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 31 of Jun. 21, 1949, which was repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply).

That is not presumed to have ownership under the substantive law, but to include matters necessary for repayment after the completion of the distribution farmland confirmation procedure, the distribution farmland repayment ledger or the distribution farmland ledger, which is a document prepared to enter the matters necessary for repayment, cannot be recognized as the presumption of changes in rights.

Therefore, a person who is not an owner of land in the distributed farmland register is registered as an owner.

Even if so, the nominal owner cannot be presumed to be the owner.

However, there is no limitation to using the contents of documents related to the distribution of farmland as data for fact-finding as data for the alteration of rights, and thus, there is no limitation to using the contents of the documents related to the distribution of farmland as data for fact-finding. In addition, not only the documents to verify the farmland subject to distribution, such as farmland registers, distribution farmland registers, or repayment registers, but also the documents related to compensation, such as a written application for compensation, prop statement, land price assessment report, and land price securities, prepared in the course of receiving compensation by the party who purchased the farmland from the State, if the owner is identical to each other, such documents can be deemed as a valuable material to recognize the fact that the land ownership was transferred

In such a case, in order to reject the probative value of the above-mentioned material, a careful determination should be made by examining closely whether there are other reasonable circumstances in place.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da91354, Jun. 27, 2013). Meanwhile, the government’s purchase of farmland that is not self-defensed by the former Farmland Reform Act does not have distributed farmland after it was purchased.