[소유권이전등기][공1993.12.15.(958),3159]
(a) A summary of certification of trade of farmland and trade of farmland in a natural green area at the time of enforcing the former Urban Planning Act;
B. Whether Article 87 (1) 3 of the same Act applies to a development restriction zone
C. Where a title trust on farmland is terminated within the urban planning zone at the time of the enforcement of the same Act, the necessity of the certificate of farmland trade.
A. At the time of enforcement of Article 87(1)3 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191), since the application of the Farmland Reform Act is excluded with respect to farmland located in a natural green area within the urban planning zone, there is no need for proof of the competent government office with respect to the sale of such farmland.
B. The former Urban Planning Act does not explicitly state that Article 87 (1) 3 of the same Act does not apply to development-restricted areas stipulated in Article 21 (1) of the same Act, but does not state any provision that excludes the application of the above provision to development-restricted areas, and there is no ground to interpret that the above provision shall not apply to farmland located within development-restricted areas.
(c) Since the title trust is terminated for farmland located in the urban planning zone at the time the government office’s certification was not required for the sale and purchase of farmland within the urban planning zone, there is no room to apply the proviso of Article 87(1) of the amended Urban Planning Act. Therefore, in the registration of ownership transfer based on the above title trust termination, there is no need to prove farmland sale.
(a)(b)Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 87(1)3(b) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191); Article 21(1)(c) of the Urban Planning Act; Article 87(1) of the same Act;
A. Supreme Court Order 92Da46004 Delivered on February 17, 1986, 86Ma30 (Gong1986, 789), November 6, 1990, 90Ma769 (Gong1991, 34) (Gong1993Ha, 2583)
Counterclaim Plaintiff 1 and five Counterclaim Plaintiff et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)
Counterclaim Defendant (Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 91Na47590, 91Na47606 decided October 30, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the counter defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the counterclaim defendant are examined (the grounds of appeal on the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the appellate brief are examined to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal).
On the first ground for appeal.
Article 87 (1) 3 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 1991; hereinafter the same) is excluded from the application of the Farmland Reform Act to farmland located in the natural green belt area within the urban planning zone at the time of enforcement of Article 87 (1) 3 of the same Act, so there is no need for proof of the competent government office with regard to the purchase and sale of such farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 86Ma30, Feb. 17, 1986). Thus, the court below was just and there is no violation of
However, since the designation of a development restriction zone under the former Urban Planning Act is determined by urban planning within an urban planning zone (see Articles 2(1)1(a) and 21(1) of the same Act), even if farmland is located within an urban planning zone, it is still an urban planning zone even if it is designated as a development restriction zone under Article 2(1)1(a) and Article 21(1)3 of the same Act, and the implementation of an urban planning project is not entirely prohibited (see Article 21(2) of the same Act). Thus, the former Urban Planning Act does not stipulate any explicit provision excluding the application of Article 87(1)3 of the same Act to a development restriction zone, and there is no ground to interpret that the above provision should be excluded from the application to a development restriction zone.
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
On the second ground for appeal.
As long as the title trust of the farmland in this case located in the urban planning area (green area) at the time when there was no proof from the government office having jurisdiction over the farmland transaction in the urban planning area was required by Article 87(1)3 of the former Urban Planning Act prior to the enforcement of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191) prior to the enforcement of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Jun. 15, 1992), there is no room to apply the proviso of Article 87(1) of the amended Urban Planning Act. Thus, in the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the title trust termination, there is no need to prove the transaction of farmland. Therefore, the court below's decision
In addition, even if the above amended Urban Planning Act applies to the farmland of this case, it is merely a matter in the process of applying for registration and the decision that the farmland of this case cannot be concluded as a farmland which is not necessary for the urban planning project is unlawful, such as misunderstanding of legal principles. However, the above decision of the court below was made before the enforcement of the amended Urban Planning Act, and thus, the above revised Urban Planning Act cannot be applied. In addition, the above decision of the court below is just, and as seen earlier, the decision of the court below is not affected the conclusion of the decision.
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)