Where a purchaser completes repayment from a person who purchased outstanding farmland on a conditional basis, and the State has made a registration of transfer of ownership to a distributor, the validity of such registration.

Even if the sale of unredeemed farmland subject to siteization is exceptionally recognized as valid, it is only limited to recognizing the validity of the sale between the parties to the above transaction, and as such, the State did not impose an obligation on the purchaser to transfer ownership to the person (seller) who received the original farmland distribution, and thus cannot be deemed null and void.

Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Educational Foundation Southern Educational Foundation

Daegu High Court Decision 65Na398 delivered on November 30, 1966

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal:

According to the original judgment, the court below found the following facts as follows. In other words, when the defendant purchases the land of this case which the non-party had been repaid with the distribution of farmland from the State, the defendant purchased from the above non-party on April 2, 1954 for the purpose of using it as the building site and playground, the defendant would purchase the land of this case as joint land and apply for temporary redemption approval. The above non-party changed the land category into the site and made the registration of ownership transfer at the request of the defendant. The non-party had already paid the first installment payment, and until the non-party had already paid the first installment payment, he acquired and managed the land of this case on condition that the non-party would not acquire and manage the land of this case, and even if the non-party did not pay the above land of this case as the contract bond of 1954.4.2, 1954.2, 12,500 won, the remaining money was paid to the non-party for the registration of ownership transfer as the non-party's land transfer.

However, since the purchase and sale of the farmland distributed pursuant to the provision of the main sentence of Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 561 of Oct. 13, 1960) was prohibited before the new provision of the proviso of Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act (amended by the provision of the main sentence of Article 16), such sale and sale are automatically null and void, or it is extremely valid for the sale of the unredeemed farmland under the condition that it will be converted into the site, which is the precedents of the previous Supreme Court. However, this is nothing more than recognized as effective for the above parties, and since the State imposes a duty to register the ownership transfer on the purchaser, it cannot be deemed null and void for the State to register the ownership transfer to the person who received the farmland distribution (the above seller in the above case). Accordingly, according to the above legal principles and the court below's decision, the above non-party and the defendant's principal sale and sale are the condition that the ownership transfer registration of the farmland should be converted into a site, and it cannot be interpreted as valid for the non-party to the above provisions of Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong