[소유권이전등기][집16(1)민,263]
The necessity of sale and purchase of farmland in the already built site and of certification of farmland under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act.
A civil trial is not necessarily bound by the facts established by a criminal judgment, and it is possible to confirm other facts based on evidence.
Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and one other
Defendant 2
Seoul Civil Area and Seoul High Court Decision 65Na749 delivered on October 27, 1966
The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant 1 and the defendant's respective appeals are dismissed.
Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, the part arising from the defendant's appeal by the defendant 1 shall be borne by the same defendant, and the part arising from the appeal by the defendant's Republic of Korea shall
Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal No. 1
Even if the original judgment is reviewed by comparing the records, it is not possible to find out that there is an error of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, or there is an error of the reasoning or incomplete hearing, as alleged in the arguments in the case of the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding in the original judgment.
Defendant 1’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 through 4(1) by Defendant 1
A civil trial does not necessarily have to be bound by the facts established by a criminal judgment, and a civil court is able to recognize facts different from the facts established by a criminal judgment based on evidence, and if comprehensive review of each evidence cited by the original judgment is conducted based on the records, the facts established by the original judgment can be recognized, and there is no misunderstanding of the rules of evidence in the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding on the original judgment. Therefore, it is without merit to criticize the evidence preparation and fact-finding, which are all the matters established by the original judgment, on the premise of the independent value judgment on the evidences
The grounds of appeal No. 4 (2) are examined as follows:
In a case where one of the parties has made a statement that is disadvantageous to himself, it is possible to withdraw or correct the fact of the statement before the other party has invoked it, so there is no reason to criticize the original judgment as an opposing opinion.
The above ground of appeal No. 4(c)(c)
Based on the timely evidence, the court below did not find out that there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence in the protocol that recognized the fact that the non-party had already been in the site at the time of purchasing the land from the non-party, who is the distributor, and therefore, the court below's decision that the above sale does not require the farmland certification of the agency where the location is located is just, and there is no argument.
Defendant Republic of Korea’s ground of appeal No. 1
In the case of ordinary co-litigants, it is not related to the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant in the paper, but related to the lawsuit between the plaintiff and other co-defendants, so it should not be a legitimate ground for appeal.
The second ground of appeal No. 2
Even if the farmland is distributed with the redemption fees, the sale contract can be executed with the completion of the redemption terms as the condition precedent, and if the land has already been converted into the site, the farmland certification under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act is not necessary. Therefore, the original judgment that held to the same effect is justifiable and it is not reasonable.
Therefore, each appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro