[소유권이전등기말소][집16(3)민,019]
The case where there is an error of misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of good faith.
Even if a person who has disposed of farmland distributed prior to the completion of the repayment in violation of this Article, which is a mandatory law, and who has delivered such farmland actually claims the invalidity of the disposal act, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the principle of trust and good faith in light of the purport
Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and four others
Seoul High Court Decision 67Na3006 delivered on May 30, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na3006 delivered on May 30, 1968
We reverse the original judgment.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' request for reconsideration of the farmland distribution disposition against the deceased non-party 1 on June 5, 1962 against the deceased non-party 1 on the ground that the deceased non-party 1, who had cultivated the farmland before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, had been distributed to the non-party 1 for about one year due to the implementation of the same Act, and sold it to the non-party 3 on April 1954. The defendant, etc. purchased it from the same non-party and transferred it to the non-party 1 on December 30, 1960, and paid in full the amount of redemption under the name of the non-party 1 on December 30, 1960. Meanwhile, the defendants filed a request for reconsideration of the farmland distribution registration against the non-party 1 on the part of the deceased non-party 3 on the ground that the farmland distribution registration was groundless, but the plaintiff's act of selling it to the non-party 1 on October 27, 1962.
However, in a case where a person who received farmland has disposed of the farmland to another person before the completion of the repayment and has actually delivered the farmland, this act of disposal is null and void as stated in the opinion of all members. This is based on the fact that the purpose of distributing farmland under Article 1 of the Farmland Reform Act is achieved by prohibiting the sale of the farmland before the completion of the repayment, and that it is in violation of the mandatory law to promote the interest of the small and medium-scale farmer who received the farmland distributed, and if it is rejected as the reason that it is an exercise of the right against the principle of good faith if it is against such mandatory law, the violator's own assertion that the invalidation is null and void is against the principle of good faith, it would result in seeking the benefit of the small-scale farmer under Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act and preventing the sacrifice of the economic person. The reason why the plaintiff's invalidation cannot be allowed is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the principle of good faith.
Therefore, by applying Article 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court