Whether the purchase of farmland to be used for school sites and the violation of the Farmland Reform Act

If it is recognized that the Plaintiff purchased several lots of land including this parcel of land being redeemed for the purpose of using it as a site for a high school on May 19, 1954, and the transfer registration of ownership is made after the payment was made by agreement with the execution key after the completion of the redemption, and then was delivered to B, it is valid as a conditional sale of land for farmland, and it does not violate the Farmland Reform Act.

Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1068 Delivered on October 11, 1966

school juristic person Sociowon Association

Defendant

Busan District Court (66Ga4306)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall execute the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff on May 18, 1954 with respect to the 358 of the permanent residence of Jung-gu, Busan Metropolitan City 452 to the plaintiff.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The land stated in the purport of the claim is not subject to dispute between the parties as to the fact that the original farmland belongs to the defendant's prior owner was distributed around 1950 and the defendant inherited on September 7, 1961 and completed the repayment on October 17, 1962. As to the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the defendant as of October 17, 1966, evidence No. 3 (Receipt), evidence No. 6-2 (Real Estate Sale Certificate), evidence No. 9 (Real Estate Sale Certificate), evidence No. 11, evidence No. 12 (Evidence of Contract Price Repayment Certificate), evidence No. 12 (Evidence of Contract Price Repayment Certificate), evidence No. 10, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 10 and evidence No. 2, evidence No. 9, evidence No. 5, each of the above facts that the plaintiff paid to the non-party 1's testimony under the name of the non-party 3, evidence No. 4, and each of the above testimony No. 5.

The defendant asserts that the purchase and transfer of farmland in repayment is null and void because the plaintiff was not a farmer even if the plaintiff purchased the land in this case as above. However, even if the purchase and sale of farmland is made in the same manner as the defendant's head, if the plaintiff purchased the land for the purpose of making it into the site and made it into the site within a short period of time after being delivered, it shall be deemed valid as a conditional sale of land in the so-called form of farmland. Therefore, the defendant's argument is groundless

Thus, since the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on May 19, 1954 with respect to the land transferred to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the performance of the objection against the defendant is justified and accepted.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that concluded as above is just and there is no ground for appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Song-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Ho-young fixed right