Where a person who has been awarded a bid for farmland has completed the registration of ownership transfer after obtaining a certificate of farmland sale in the office where the location is located under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act and the said certificate of farmland sale is revoked, the ownership transfer

Even if a successful bidder of farmland completes the registration of ownership transfer by obtaining a certificate of farmland sale by the government office at the seat of the farmland under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, if the certificate of farmland sale is revoked later, the certificate of farmland sale is the same as that of the never existed from the beginning, and shall not take effect on the purchaser of the farmland in the future.

Park Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Dried seasons

Daejeon District Court Decision 74Na141,212 delivered on November 22, 1974

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are examined.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, even if the plaintiff was found to have obtained permission for the sale and purchase of the above land on July 14, 1971, and it cannot be found that the plaintiff acquired the above land on August 17 of the same year from the head of Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, to the effect that the purchase of the above land does not exceed three information even after the purchase of the land on August 21 of the same year, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the plaintiff 10.11 of the same year, but the above non-furnal Chapter had already owned three or more farmland at the time when the plaintiff received the registration of sale and purchase of the above land, and it cannot be viewed that the above non-furnal land was invalid for the purpose of the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer for the plaintiff on March 14, 197, and that the above non-party 2 had no legitimate ground for cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer for the above land on the ground that the above non-party 1 had no ground for cancellation.

The final appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)