In order to carry out work on the creation of a site before the completion of the reimbursement for a distributed farmland sales contract, the validity of the case where the farmland is actually delivered to the buyer for the purpose of realizing the land before the completion of the reimbursement.

Even if the farmland was distributed before the completion of the repayment, it is interpreted that the act of selling and selling as farmland is effective unless the completion of the repayment is the condition precedent and the actual delivery is not made before the fulfillment of the condition. If the farmland was sold and sold for the purpose of site creation, it is considered as a sale on the land to be completed in the future under the condition of suspension, and it does not affect the validity of the sale itself even if it was delivered in reality for the purpose of performing the work of site creation before the completion of the repayment.

Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act

Applicant

The Korea Lottery Association, a foundation,

Busan District Court Decision 65Na614 delivered on December 30, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the applicant's attorney is examined.

Even if the farmland was distributed before the completion of the repayment, it is interpreted that the act of selling and selling it as farmland is valid, unless the completion of the repayment is the condition of suspension of the payment and the actual delivery is not fulfilled before the fulfillment of the condition. If the farmland was sold and sold for the purpose of building site creation, it is considered as a sale on the land to be completed in the future under the condition of suspension of siteization, and even if it is delivered to the purchaser in reality before the completion of the payment, it is interpreted that this does not affect the validity of the sale itself. As such, the original judgment has a clear opinion in the case of the party members that the applicant sold the land in dispute with the purpose of building siteizing the land and the respondent sells it to the respondent for the purpose of building site and the respondent delivers it to construct a building on the ground, and the respondent has received it to the land and received it as a condition of suspension, and therefore, it cannot be discussed that it will be attributed to the respondent's own opinion that it would belong to the construction of the above land under the law.

The second ground for appeal shall be determined.

Of each fact that the court below recognized the contents of No. 1 and No. 2 as the contents of the lawsuit, the part that the applicant collected the previous building constructed on the land in dispute before the purchase and sale of the land in dispute and that the part that the respondent recognized as having built the building on the land in dispute after the purchase of the land in dispute and the part that the respondent recognized as having built the building on the land in dispute does not coincide with the contents of each supporting document. However, the court below held that the purport of the original judgment is that the applicant sells the land in dispute, which is the farmland in the amount of the compensation in installments, to the respondent under the condition that the applicant should make the land in dispute, and its delivery was completed, and that the respondent created the land and constructed the building on the land in question, and at the same time the ownership of the land in question belongs to the respondent as the validity of the sale, the judgment does not affect the result of each mistake in fact-finding in each of the above original judgment.

Therefore, by unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)