(b)where a request is made for the implementation of the procedures for ownership transfer registration on the grounds of the farmland sales contract concluded without obtaining the certification of the location office, the time limit for obtaining such certification;

C. In the case of Paragraph B above, whether the defendant's assertion that there was no such proof in the court below's application for resumption of pleading, and whether the defendant delayed the conclusion of the lawsuit as a means of attack and defense that was submitted late at the time of the argument (negative)

(b) In the event that a purchaser claims the performance of the ownership transfer registration procedure against a seller on the grounds of a farmland sales contract executed without obtaining the certification of the location office, it should not obtain the certification of the location office at least until the closure of pleadings by the fact-finding court.

C. Even if the Defendant asserted that there was no proof of the seat office in the sale of farmland only when he/she applied for the resumption of pleadings after the closure of pleadings at the lower court, insofar as it is deemed that, in a lawsuit claiming the implementation of ownership transfer registration procedure based on the sale and purchase of farmland, the proof of the seat office should be provided at least until the closure of the pleadings at the lower court, it is not recognized that the Defendant’s above assertion was an attack and defense method that was submitted at the

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The purport of Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is that the certification of a location agency under Article 19(2) cannot bring about the effect of the ownership transfer due to the purchase and sale, and it does not bring about the effect of the ownership transfer as a bond contract between the parties to the transaction of farmland. Thus, the above certification is not necessarily required at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract, and the farmland sales contract under the condition of the suspension to obtain the certification of the location agency is also valid as pointed out.

However, as in the case of this case, if a purchaser claims the performance of the ownership transfer registration procedure against a seller on the ground of a farmland sales contract executed without the verification of the location government office, the opinion that the party member should obtain the certification of the location government office at least until the closure of pleadings at the fact-finding court is established. (See Supreme Court Decision 68Da646 delivered on June 18, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3082 delivered on December 20, 198, etc.). Thus, although the decision of the court below did not contain any improper explanation as to the additional judgment in stating the reasons of the decision, the decision that the buyer of farmland cannot claim for the performance of the ownership transfer registration procedure against the seller unless he obtains the certification of the location government office is justified, and it cannot be accepted without examining the decision of the court below properly, and there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

Even if the Defendant asserted that there was no proof of the seat office in the sale of the farmland in this case only when he applied for the resumption of pleadings after the closure of pleadings at the lower court, insofar as it is deemed that the location office’s proof should be provided in the lawsuit claiming the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the sale and purchase of farmland at least until the closure of pleadings at the lower court, it is not recognized that the Defendant’s above assertion was delayed in the conclusion of the lawsuit as a means of attack and defense that was submitted late at the time of the pleadings, and thus, it is not reasonable in the lower court’s determination that the Defendant did not dismiss the above argument in the same purport, and it is not acceptable to accept the argument that there was an error

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)