B. The validity of a contract where there is no proof of a location agency at the time of concluding the contract

(c) Where the registration of ownership transfer for farmland has been completed, the burden of proving the existence of the seat office;

B. The proof of a location government office under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is not a requirement for establishing a transaction of farmland, and is not necessarily required at the time of the conclusion of the transaction contract, and it does not necessarily mean that the transaction, which is a bond contract, is null and void on the ground that there

C. In the event that the registration of ownership transfer has been completed with respect to farmland, it is presumed that there was the proof of the office where the location of the farmland transaction was located, and the fact that there was no proof as to the matters to be proved was not the matter to be examined ex officio.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Unless there are special circumstances, the negligence arising from an object not delivered even after the conclusion of a sales contract shall be deemed to belong to the seller (Article 587 of the Civil Act). However, if the purchaser paid the purchase price in full even before the delivery of the object of sale, the right to receive the fruits thereafter shall be deemed to belong to the buyer. In addition, the proof of the location government office under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is not the requisite for the transaction of farmland, and it is not necessarily required at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract, and the sale, which is a bond contract, is not null and void, on the ground that there is no proof of farmland transaction at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract (see Supreme Court Decision

In the same purport, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment of this case was groundless since the plaintiffs purchased each real estate of this case from the defendant and paid the purchase price in full, and the defendant received 8,600,000 won from the non-party for the lease of each of the real estate of this case from the non-party, and the defendant received 8,60,000 won from the non-party, without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant judged that the above amount of profit was obtained without any legal ground and caused damage to the plaintiffs, and each transfer of ownership, which was made under the plaintiffs' name, was null and void due to the lack of proof of farmland transaction in the location office in the sales contract of each of the real estate of this case, which is farmland, and therefore, the court below's measures

In addition, the court below's explanation that the contract of this case contains the burden of proving the location agency's proof in the contract of this case is erroneous, or that the sale of this case, which is a bond contract, is not null and void because there is no certificate of farmland sale as mentioned above. Furthermore, if the registration of ownership transfer has been completed with respect to farmland, it is presumed that the government office with the location of the transaction was proved, and that there was no proof as to the fact that there was no proof as to the fact that there was no proof as to the fact that there was no matter of ex officio investigation, has the burden of proving the person who raised this dispute (see Supreme Court Decision 87Da1312 delivered on October 28, 197; Supreme Court Decision 92Da36403 delivered on December 24, 1992), and it cannot be said that the court below

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)