Whether the title trust relationship with the above-mentioned is maintained as it is even after the Farmland Reform Act enters into force (affirmative)

The above discussions set forth in Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act do not acquire the land from the State because, regardless of whom the above land report was actually made by anyone, it was intended to protect a grave by person, or it was not farmland subject to distribution. Since the ownership of the above land cannot be different from the general ownership, the title trust relation with the above land is promulgated and enforced and maintained even if the Farmland Reform Act was enforced.

Article 186 of the Civil Act / [title trust] Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1138 Decided September 19, 1967 (No. 15 third citizen90)

Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant from among the Domink Kim Jong-chul, Jink Kim Jae-gu

Defendant 1 and four defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 90Na12950 delivered on January 16, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are as follows.

1. The court below acknowledged that the farmland of this case was owned by the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 who was the father of the defendants before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff 1 had the non-party 3 and his children among the plaintiff 3 and the non-party 4, who were his children, cultivate the farmland of this case, not the above land, and had the plaintiff 1 through 3, and the non-party 6 cultivate the farmland of this case. As part of the withdrawal, it was used in five volunteer trees of the plaintiff 7 farmland of this case and the non-party 4, who was his children, from among the plaintiff 7 farmland of this case and the non-party 1, who were his children, were the trusted of the farmland of this case. The court below determined that the above farmland was purchased from the state since the farmland Reform Act was enacted legally cultivated by the non-trustee 3, who was the truster, and it was not the owner of the plaintiff 1, who was returned to the original owner of the farmland.

The above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of appeal.

2. The above discussion set forth in Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act is whether the above discussion was actually made by anyone, regardless of who was a son, the above discussion is not a farmland subject to distribution, and it does not acquire it from the State because it was not a farmland subject to distribution, and the ownership of the above discussion cannot be different from the general ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da1138 delivered on September 19, 1967). The title trust relation with the above discussion is maintained as it is when the Farmland Reform Act was promulgated.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendants who succeeded to the status of the trustee upon the termination of the title trust relationship are liable to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the farmland Nos. 4 and 7 of this case, the truster, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles. The arguments are without merit.

All appeals are 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 on the bench.