[부당이득금][집14(3)민,036]
Purchase and sale of farmland in violation of the Farmland Reform Act and the purchaser's right to cultivate farmland.
Although the purchase and sale of farmland between the plaintiff and the defendant is not effective as a violation of the Farmland Reform Act, but becomes final and conclusive as a defendant's failure in the lawsuit for requesting the transfer of farmland against the defendant, from 64.5.6, which is the date of the lawsuit, it should be viewed as the possession in bad faith from the 64.5.6, which is the date of the lawsuit, but prior to that, because the sale was known to be effective, it shall be regarded as a bona fide possessor, and therefore, the part cultivated before that lawsuit is
Article 201 (1) of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Busan District Court Decision 66Na30 delivered on April 15, 1966
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.
According to the theory of the reasoning of the original judgment, the original court recognized that the farmland at issue in this case was owned by the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1, and died during the repayment under the Farmland Reform Act, and that the plaintiff sold the farmland at 4,500 won to the defendant on August 6, 1956 and made profits by cultivating the farmland until the time when the plaintiff paid the farmland and received the farmland from the defendant in 1964, and the sale of farmland between the original defendant did not take effect as a violation of the Farmland Reform Act. However, since the plaintiff was finally decided as the defendant in the lawsuit claiming the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the land to the other party of this case, it shall be deemed that the sale was effective prior to that date, but since it was known that the sale was in good faith, it shall not be deemed that the portion of the farmland at issue was the owner of the non-party 4,000 witness's right of experience before that date, the decision of the court below was justified in rejecting the above legal reasoning.
The appeal is without merit because it criticizes the legitimate fact judgment or the rejection of evidence in the original judgment without any ground.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Articles 89 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Supreme Court Judge Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)