[1] Criteria for determining whether a farmland constitutes "farmland" under the Farmland Act

[2] In a case where the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland was submitted only in the re-appeal trial against the decision of rejection of sale by an auction court, whether it can be considered (negative)

[1] Article 2 of the Farmland Act / [2] Article 129 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 8 of the Farmland Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 98Ma2604 delivered on February 23, 1999 (Gong199Sang, 827)

Re-appellant

Cheongju District Court Order 2006Ra144 dated February 5, 2007

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Whether certain land is "farmland" under the Farmland Act shall be determined according to the actual state of the land in question regardless of the land category in the public record book, and even if the land category in the public record book is changed as farmland, if the change is merely temporary, and if it can easily recover as farmland, it still constitutes farmland under the Farmland Act (see Supreme Court Order 98Ma2604 delivered on February 23, 199, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, the court below is just in holding that the land in this case is a land category entered in the public register, and although its status is used differently from its land category, it cannot be deemed to be difficult to restore it to its original state because it completely loses its function as farmland, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to farmland under the Farmland Act, as alleged in the grounds for reappeal.

2. After the auction court rendered a provisional decision on the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland of this case on the ground that the applicant did not submit the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland of this case, the re-appeal was filed, and the appeal was dismissed, and even if the reappeal submitted the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland of this case on the ground that the re-appeal was an ex post facto appellate trial, and such ground is not a ground for consideration of re-appeal.

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)