[토지인도등][집15(3)민,201]
Cases recognized as a person holding security for before an agricultural cooperative that cannot obtain ownership under the Farmland Reform Act;
Even if farmland is for the purpose of transfer for security, ownership of such farmland shall not be acquired unless it is a farmer.
Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 4 of the Farmland Security Act
Monthly Agricultural Cooperatives
Defendant
Gwangju High Court Decision 67Na44 delivered on June 14, 1967
The part concerning the preceding 3,720 square meters in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The appeal on the remainder is dismissed.
As to Defendant’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 1
According to the whole purport of the pleading, since the defendant did not claim that he had the obligation secured by the initial mortgage, it eventually leads to the argument that the original judgment contains the error of lack of reasons for lack of reasons.
The grounds of appeal No. 2
Based on the evidence stated in the original judgment, we cannot agree with the original judgment that the registration of ownership transfer in this case is to secure the claim, and there is no error in the misapprehension of its recognition.In the end, the argument that the payment in kind is a payment in kind is ultimately attributable to the criticism of the lower court's entire authority on the determination of the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding. There is no merit in the argument.
As to the ground of appeal No. 3
In order for a mortgagee to exercise his security right, the order of the principal house on this case can be claimed by the mortgagee, or with respect to the principal house on this case which is farmland, it is the legal principle that the ownership can not be acquired even if it is not a farming household under the Farmland Reform Act, even though it was the purpose of the security. Therefore, with respect to this case, the original judgment that the plaintiff is a mortgagee is illegal, and there is a reason for the appeal to this point, and the part on this case in the original judgment should not be reversed.
Therefore, pursuant to Articles 400, 395, 384, 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 (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.