Whether a person with a security interest in an obligation can acquire farmland for the purpose of security without his/her own will if the person is a farmer.

Even if the person who has a security interest in the obligation is a farm household, farmland shall not be acquired without his own discretion or self-Decree alone.

Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da490 Decided May 28, 1968

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 75Na1096 Decided April 15, 1977

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the original judgment, the court below held that the above non-party's registration of transfer of ownership on the farmland of this case, which was completed by the plaintiff in the future of the non-party, solely for the purpose of securing the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff without a self-defluence or self-defence, since this is the registration of invalidity of cause and the plaintiff's assertion that the ownership transfer registration made in the defendant's future is also null and void, and thus, a person who is not a farmer under the Farmland Reform Act is not entitled to obtain a valid registration of transfer of ownership on the farmland of this case without a self-defluence or self-defluence, but if he is a farmer under the Farmland Reform Act, he can obtain a valid registration of transfer of ownership only for the purpose of securing the claim, and the above non-party, who received the registration of transfer of ownership from the plaintiff, can take the fact that he was a farmer who was farming at around 494 square meters in North Korea at that time. Thus, the above non-party's registration of transfer of ownership cannot be deemed null

However, even if a registration of ownership transfer has been made under the name of a creditor for the purpose of securing a debt, it shall be legally deemed that the transfer of farmland is required to be proved under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, and the person intending to acquire farmland shall have the intention of self-determination or self-determination, and even if there is no opinion of self-determination, it shall not be deemed that the transfer of farmland is valid as long as the requirement under Article 19 (2) of the above Act is not met even if there is proof of the office having jurisdiction over the farmland for the purpose of securing a debt, even if there is proof of the location of the office under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act in the case where the ownership transfer registration goes through the registration of ownership transfer without the intention of self-determination or self-determination, it shall not be deemed that the registration of ownership transfer is invalid unless it conforms to the substance of the farmland, and thus, it shall be interpreted as the opinion of the court below that the registration of ownership transfer should not be cancelled without the intention of the non-party or self-determination (see Supreme Court Decision 207Da1680.86.86.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the original judgment is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)