Whether a seller has a duty to deliver farmland to a buyer in cases where farmland sold by a person to whom farmland was distributed but distribution thereof becomes null and void.

If an invalid farmland distribution and redemption has been completed and the sale thereof has been made, it shall be deemed that the real estate of another person is the subject matter of sale. However, the sale contract is effective as a bond contract between the parties concerned. Therefore, the seller is obligated to acquire the right and transfer it to the buyer, and also is obligated to have the subject matter of sale of property right, the possession of which

Article 569 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant (Attorney Shin Jae-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 73Na298 delivered on October 4, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined comprehensively.

If an invalid farmland distribution is completed and the sale is made, it shall be deemed that the other person's real property is the object of sale. Thus, even if the buyer has completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name, it shall be null and void, and even if the buyer has completed the registration of ownership transfer, it shall not legally acquire the ownership. However, the seller shall continue to exist as a bond contract, and as such, it shall not be denied that the seller is obligated to deliver the target real property as the performance of the contract. In this case, according to the facts established by the court below, the sale and purchase of the mortgaged real property is null and void as it is the sale and purchase of the real property owned by the other person, but the sale and sale of the real property is effective between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to acquire the right and transfer it to the plaintiff. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to remove and transfer it to the land owner, not as discussed in this case, or there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right of another person.

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice)