Sale and purchase of farmland under the condition of suspension of siteization;

After the enforcement of this Act, it is impossible to sell or purchase the props' own farmland without the proof of the seat office as provided in paragraph (2) of this Article. However, if a party to the sale sells or sells the farmland under the condition of suspension for the purpose of converting it into a site, and the site conversion work, which is the condition, is conducted within the time limit after the sale, it shall be deemed the sale and purchase of the farmland, and it shall be deemed the effective sale in the absence of such proof

Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Gyeongnam-do (Attorney Kim Jong-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court Decision 66Na196 delivered on July 22, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

Even after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, a prop's land cannot be purchased and sold without the proof of the office at the seat prescribed in Article 19 (2) of the said Act. However, even if a purchaser purchased the farmland for the purpose of using it for the land at the seat of the government office, under the condition that the purchase and sale of the farmland was conducted within a short time after the purchase and sale, the purchase and sale of the farmland shall be deemed a site, and there is no such proof as above as to the land. Thus, it shall be deemed a valid sale and sale without the consent of the party members. There is no legal reason to recognize the validity of the purchase and sale as the purchaser of the farmland at the condition of the suspension as the State or a public organization. However, even if the land at issue was purchased for the purpose of using it for the land at the seat of the third school operated by the plaintiff, the farmland at issue is currently cultivated (the plaintiff's assertion that all the land was not conducted by the defendant because its delivery was rejected, and it shall be deemed that the purchase and sale of the farmland at the seat of the plaintiff, regardless of its original opinion as to be 90.

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