[소유권확인등][집17(1)민,095]
In the sales contract of farmland unredeemed as condition precedent, even if the farmland is delivered for the purpose of site creation before the repayment is completed, the sales contract is valid.
In the sales contract of farmland unredeemed as a condition precedent, the sales contract is valid even if the farmland is delivered for the purpose of site creation before the repayment is completed.
Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act
Supreme Court Decision 66Da329 delivered on April 6, 1966
Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2308 delivered on May 23, 1968
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.
If evidence Nos. 1 and 3 evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 (written testimony of hearing) adopted by the court below lawfully by the original judgment and the record all the testimony of Non-party 1 and other various evidences, the defendant purchased the real estate which is farmland distributed from the fleet of the plaintiff et al. for the purpose of housing construction site, and constructed the house on August of the same year on the site, and purchased the real estate again from the defendant et al. with knowledge of the fact that the real estate belongs to the property belonging to the original judgment, and therefore, the court below found that the testimony of Non-party 1 and Non-party 2 did not recognize the same fact only with the testimony of the court of first instance. Thus, it is clear that the court below erred by misapprehending the admissibility of hearsay evidence solely on the premise that the testimony of the witness et al. was admitted, and it cannot be found that the court below did not exercise the right of evidence or did not have any other reason to find any other facts.
No. 2, even if the farmland was sold and purchased for the purpose of site creation, if the farmland was sold and purchased for the purpose of site creation, it is considered as a sale on the land to be completed in the future on condition of suspension of siteization, and it is the opinion that it does not affect the validity of the sale itself, even if it was delivered to the purchaser in practice in order to implement site creation before the completion of redemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da209, Jul. 25, 1963; Supreme Court Decision 66Da329, Apr. 6, 1966). Thus, we cannot accept the argument that this sale is invalid in violation of the Farmland Reform Act.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)