(a) Whether a farmland purchaser who has no self-defensive or self-defensive intent is entitled to acquire farmland ownership;

B. Whether the farmland purchaser who has obtained the certification of the purchase and sale of farmland is presumed to have his/her own or his/her own will

(c) Whether the presumption of self-employed and self-employed will be reversed, such as obtaining a certificate of farmland sale by means of a disguised transfer, and the validity of the ownership transfer registration made in the future by the farmland purchaser;

(d) In a case where the seller and the purchaser obtain the certificate of farmland sale under a joint name, whether the heir of the seller contests the validity of the certificate of farmland sale in breach of the good faith principle;

(a) A farmland purchaser who has no self-defense or self-young intent under the Farmland Reform Act shall not acquire the ownership of farmland, regardless of whether a certificate of sale and purchase of farmland is issued or whether it is valid as an administrative disposition for such certification;

(b)the purchaser who has obtained the certification of farmland sale shall be presumed to have had his own will or her own intent, but such presumption shall be reversed if it is proved by a reflect that there was no own will or her own intent.

C. If the presumption of sale and purchase of farmland is reversed because the purchaser, a non-farmer, obtained the certificate of sale and purchase of farmland by means of disguised transfer, etc., and there was no intention to do so, the purchaser cannot file a claim against the seller for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership, and even if the registration of transfer of ownership has already been completed, the purchaser, a non-farmer, as a matter of principle, cannot acquire the ownership of farmland as it fails to meet the requirements for farmland ownership under the Farmland Reform Act, unless there are any other circumstances.

(d)Where it cannot be deemed that a farmland buyer had a self-fluorial intent, and no ownership transfer registration has been made on the grounds of a sale in the future of the buyer, the mere fact that the seller and the purchaser applied for the issuance of a certificate of farmland sale in the joint name is insufficient to deem that the seller’s heir disputing the validity of the certificate of farmland sale contravenes the good faith or the good faith principle.

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 2 of the Civil Act

A.C. Supreme Court Decision 68Da490 delivered on May 28, 1968 (No. 16 ② 88). D. Supreme Court Decision 84Da75 delivered on November 13, 1984 (Gong1985, 188). Supreme Court Decision 91Da34127 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong192, 1534 delivered on December 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 603). D. Supreme Court Decision 91Da19432 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong191, 2521)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant

Defendant 1 and 7 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other

Daejeon District Court Decision 93Na1556 delivered on September 22, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The court below's finding that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the deceased non-party, that is, the plaintiff merely transferred only the resident registration to the Chungcheongnam-gun ( Address omitted) in the vicinity of the land of this case, and did not actually resided therein, despite the fact that the plaintiff had actually resided in the land of this case for not less than six months, the plaintiff deceivings the members of the farmland as if he actually resided in the land of this case for not less than six months, and obtained the issuance of the certificate of sale and purchase of farmland by using it from the farmland members. The court below's finding that there is no error of violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in light of the evidentiary relation

Of the evidence admitted by the court below as evidence of the above fact-finding, the evidence Nos. 8-5, 6, and 7-7 of the evidence Nos. 8-5, 6, and 7 are the documents bound to the records of the appeal case which have been sent to the court below by the chief of Yangyang Police station following the entrustment of delivery by the court below, and the authenticity can be recognized in accordance with the whole purport of the pleading, such as appearance, system, form, and content. Thus, there is no error

2. According to the records, the defendants' legal representative on June 15, 1993, which was stated on the third date for pleading of the court below, asserted that the plaintiff could not file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case through a preparatory document, which was obtained through disguised transfer without his/her intention, and all of the plaintiff and the defendants, on the premise that the land of this case is farmland, the plaintiff purchased the land of this case with his/her own will and actually resided in the above ( Address omitted). On the contrary, each of the defendants proved that the plaintiff obtained the registration of farmland sale by fraudulent means without his/her own will. On the sixth date for pleading of the court below, it is clear that both parties have no dispute as to the fact that the certificate of ownership sale of the land of this case is necessary."

Thus, the plaintiff and the defendants made a confession within the jurisdiction by making a statement consistent with both parties as to the fact that the land of this case is farmland requiring proof of the government office at the location of the sale, so the judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the confession within

In addition, the new argument that the present state of part of the land of this case is not farmland is not farmland at the court below, and on this premise, the theory that the court below erred in the incomplete deliberation on the necessary scope of certification of farmland trade among the land of this case does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal. Thus, there is no reason to discuss.

3. The purchaser of farmland under the Farmland Reform Act may not acquire ownership of farmland, regardless of whether a certificate of sale and purchase of farmland was issued or whether it was effective as an administrative disposition for such certificate. The purchaser who obtained the certificate of sale and purchase of farmland is presumed to have had the intent of self-defensing or self-defensing. However, if it is proved by a reflect that the purchaser had no intent of self-defensing or self-defensing, the presumption is reversed. Accordingly, the purchaser of farmland is not entitled to file a claim for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration against the seller, and even if the ownership transfer registration was already completed,

In the case of this case, it is sufficient to view that the reason why the plaintiff purchased the land of this case and obtained the certificate of farmland sale is sufficient to deem that the non-farmer did not have the intention of self-government and that the plaintiff did not have the intent of self-government. Thus, the presumption of farmland sale as to this point was reversed. Thus, the plaintiff cannot acquire the ownership of the land of this case because it did not meet the requirements necessary for farmland ownership under the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff cannot file a claim for the registration of transfer of ownership with the defendants who jointly inherited the above deceased non-party's property, but it is somewhat inappropriate at the time of establishing the reasoning, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

The precedent of a party member cited in the theory of the lawsuit is inappropriate to invoke the case in this case, unlike the case clearly revealed by a counter-proof that the buyer has no own or own intent, and it goes beyond the limit of this delegated legislation under Article 9 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Lease Management Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1124 of Aug. 3, 1993), which provides for the requirements for the issuance of a certificate of farmland sale to a non-farmer on the premise that the plaintiff had an intention of self-reliance, and thus, it is invalid or is not limited to the internal guidelines of the administrative agency, and therefore, even if the certificate of farmland sale issued by the plaintiff is in violation of the requirements prescribed in the above Enforcement Rule, the theory that the validity of the certificate cannot be denied even if it is erroneous, and therefore, it is not acceptable to view it without a need for further review. Therefore, there

4. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants asserted the validity of the certificate of farmland trade in this case under the intention of demanding the payment of the non-founded money in return for the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had the intent of self-reliance or self-employed. In this case, where the registration of ownership transfer was not completed in the future of the Plaintiff, the above deceased non-party's application for the issuance of the certificate of farmland trade in the name of the Plaintiff and the issuance was not completed, it is difficult to see that the Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, dispute the validity of the certificate of farmland trade in this case contravenes the principle of good faith or the principle of no-competiation. Therefore, there is

5. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)