[토지인도][집13(2)민,228]
Article 27 of the Farm Reform Act and Article 27 of the Farm Reform Act, where a person distributed under the Farm Reform Act sells non-self-definite farmland
(a) Prohibition of purchase and sale of farmland which is not self-defensed is to prohibit sale and purchase of farmland which is not self-defensed at the time of its promulgation;
B. This Article is to carry out the procedure of ownership transfer registration directly to the present owner, and the qualification of the present cultivator is not a requirement under this Article.
Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Distribution Farmland Ownership
Yellow iron
Kim Jin-soo
Daejeon District Court Decision 64Na253 delivered on June 18, 1965
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1
Although the reasoning of the original judgment is unclear, the purpose of prohibiting the sale and purchase of farmland which is not so-called as provided in Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act is to prohibit the sale and purchase of farmland which is not self-definite at the time of promulgation of the same Act, and where a person who received a farmland distribution pursuant to the same Act sells farmland distributed under the condition that repayment is completed or repaid is suspended, the seller shall not be deemed to violate Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act, even though he does not own cultivation, and even if he sells the farmland to the Plaintiff during the Defendant farming, the lower court’s conclusion that the sale and purchase cannot be deemed to violate the same Article is without merit.
The second ground of appeal No. 2
Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer of Distributed Farmland is that the government directly executes the procedure for ownership transfer registration to the de facto owner, and that the qualification of the de facto farmer cannot be determined by the law. Therefore, the argument is without merit.
The third ground of appeal is examined as follows.
The court below held that the use of the evidence No. 7 (a confirmation protocol) as evidence cannot be deemed to have been erroneous by the rules of evidence, and that the use of the evidence of the letter of apology as evidence was erroneous by the rules of evidence, even if there were errors by the rules of evidence, the transfer registration of the Plaintiff’s own farmland ownership in the name of the plaintiff conforms to the actual relation of rights, which is obvious by the above grounds for appeal, and therefore,
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The appeal is assessed against all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs as per Disposition.
Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro