(a) Where a claim is made for the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure on the grounds of the farmland sales contract concluded without obtaining the certification of the location office, the time limit for obtaining the certification (=when pleadings in fact are closed);

B. The case holding that even if the defendant raised a defense that the plaintiff did not obtain the certificate of farmland sale after the judgment of the court below after the remanding the case, this does not require a separate examination of evidence as a legal assertion, and this does not lead to delay in the conclusion of the lawsuit.

A. The purport of Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is that the proof of a location agency’s office under Article 19(2) of the said Act is an effective requirement for the purchase and sale of farmland, that is, the effect of the change of real rights due to the purchase and sale, and that the transfer of ownership does not take place between the parties to the purchase and sale of farmland. Therefore, the said proof does not necessarily have to be met at the time of the conclusion of the purchase and sale contract. However, if the purchaser claims against the seller for the performance of the ownership transfer registration procedure on the ground of the farmland sales contract concluded without the verification

B. The case holding that even if the defendant raised a defense that the plaintiff did not obtain the certificate of farmland sale after the judgment of the court below was remanded, this does not require a separate examination of evidence as a legal assertion, and this does not lead to delay in the conclusion of the lawsuit, and thus, it does not constitute a means of defense for

(b)Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 138 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 91Da10992 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2341). Supreme Court Decision 68Da646 delivered on June 18, 1968 (No. 16B citizen156) decided April 28, 1987 (Gong1987, 865). 91Da3872 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 1837)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant’s Attorney Lee Yong-soo

Daegu District Court Decision 90Na3384 delivered on November 23, 1990

Supreme Court Decision 90Da19459 Delivered on May 28, 1991

Daegu District Court Decision 91Na4834 delivered on June 3, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff that the Defendant purchased the instant land from the Defendant’s punishment and the Plaintiff agreed to complete the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land; (b) the Defendant did not obtain the certification of farmland sale; and (c) the Plaintiff did not obtain the certification of farmland sale; and (d) the Plaintiff did not request the Defendant to implement the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land based on the agreement between the parties to the purchase and sale, on the ground that the proof of the location of the government office under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act does not bring about the effect of the change in real rights due to the purchase and sale of the instant land, i.e., the effect of the change in real rights; and (e., the effect of the ownership transfer transfer registration as a bond contract between the parties to the purchase and sale of the instant land; (b) the said proof does not necessarily have to be provided at the time of the conclusion of the contract; (c) however, if the purchaser claims against the seller on the ground of the farmland purchase and sale contract executed without the certification of the location government office.

According to the records, it is clear that the defendant's legal representative asserted that the plaintiff's claim was groundless since the time when the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from December 11, 1991 to now since there was no certificate from the locational office. Thus, even though the defendant's legal representative asserted that the sale of farmland for which the defendant's legal representative did not obtain a certificate from the locational office is invalid, it is difficult to accept the argument that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the pleading principle in the above judgment.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below asserted that the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff's claim for the execution of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership is without merit since the plaintiff failed to obtain the certification of the location office under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act concerning the sale and purchase of the land of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff should be dismissed since the plaintiff's claim is a defense method that was submitted late due to the defendant's gross negligence at the time of the defendant's grave negligence. Thus, the defendant's claim was asserted only through the preparatory document dated December 26, 191 stated at the 11st day of pleading, which was after the judgment of remand was rendered after the defendant's second day of pleading, but the defendant's claim that the above defense was not possible to claim the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale because it did not obtain the certificate of the location office. As such, the court below did not require a separate examination of evidence between the parties

In light of the records and the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the method of offence and defense by the deadline, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)