과징금부과처분취소
The plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiffs to Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In addition, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant penalty surcharge imposition against the Plaintiffs should be revoked, on the grounds that both J, K, and C are corporations that are not entitled to acquire farmland ownership under the former Farmland Reform Act, each sales contract for each of the instant land shares and land, which was concluded by each of the said corporations in sequence, is null and void for the purpose of providing benefits that are an original impossibility.
However, the former Farmland Reform Act was repealed by Act No. 4817 on December 22, 1994.
The Farmland Act applies to each purchase and sale contract for shares in each of the instant lands, and the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under Article 8(1) of the Farmland Act is a document to be attached to a person who acquired farmland in filing an application for registration of ownership, and it does not constitute a requirement which creates the effect of a juristic act (sale, etc.) which causes the acquisition of farmland, as a document to be attached to a person who
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da49251, Feb. 27, 1998; 2005Da59871, Jan. 27, 2006). Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion based on the repealed Farmland Reform Act is without merit.
3. The judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.