Whether a contract for the transfer of a farmland cultivation right to the entrustment of farmland falls under the entrusted management, etc. of farmland under Article 17 of the Farmland Reform Act.

A contract for the transfer of a farmland cultivation right to a person entrusted with farmland, or for the transfer of a farmland cultivation right to a person entrusted with cultivation, which is executed in addition thereto, is all in violation of Article 17 of the Farmland Reform Act and is void automatically.

Article 17 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

1. Defendant 1 delivered to the Plaintiff white 22 Gam (general goods, 80 kilograms per Gam).

If compulsory execution with respect to the above whiteus is impossible, 1,540,000 won will be paid.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 and the remaining claim against the defendant 1 are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is divided into two parts, and one is the plaintiff, the remaining part is the defendant 1, and the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 is the plaintiff, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally deliver to the Plaintiff the white 44 kilograms (general fine goods, 80 kilograms per horse, 20 kilograms below).

If it is impossible to enforce compulsory execution against the above white village, 3,00,000 won per 75,000 won per 1 to 1,000 US dollars and 25% per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and provisional execution shall be declared.

1. Judgment on the main claim

As the cause of the instant claim, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired on December 2, 1985 with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to jointly and severally pay 220 Ga,00,000 in the amount of 1,50 Ba,500 (3,500 Ba, 1,500 Ba, 1,500 (the following answers) to the Plaintiff as if they were under consignment cultivation, and they belong to the Plaintiff as if they were under consignment cultivation. The Plaintiff transferred Defendant 1’s entrusted cultivation right to the instant answer to the Plaintiff in 1986, and the Plaintiff paid Defendant 1 for that price. If the Plaintiff is unable to cultivate the instant answer, the Defendants agreed to jointly and severally compensate for 444 Ba,000 in the amount of 1,50 Ba,000 Ba, and on the premise that the Defendants were not aware of the remaining portion of the witness’s testimony without being paid by Nonparty 2, as alleged otherwise by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

In full view of the purport of the argument between the plaintiff and the defendant 1, the witness testimony made by the non-party 3, and the plaintiff and the defendant 2 can be recognized as the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1 (the defendant 2's legal representative is the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's testimony, and the plaintiff's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's testimony, the plaintiff's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's counter-6's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's counter-1's counter-1'

The plaintiff sought joint payment of 44 Gama under the above agreement to the defendants, and according to Article 17 of the Farmland Reform Act, all farmland shall not be subject to the act of farming, lease, entrustment management, etc. except in exceptional cases such as the case of Article 5 (1) 2 (b) of the same Act. This is a mandatory provision to achieve the so-called freedom of cultivation, and a contract violating this principle shall be null and void. The contract between the plaintiff and the defendants on the transfer of the right of cultivation concluded between the plaintiff and the transfer of the right of cultivation concluded between the plaintiff and the defendants shall be null and void as a contract with the purpose of entrusted management for the instant answer, which is farmland, and the scheduled contract for compensation for damage incidental thereto shall be null and void as a matter of course (if the plaintiff fails to cultivate the instant answer, as alleged by the plaintiff's legal representative, only if the defendants are jointly and severally liable for compensation for any reason, this would result in compelling the execution of the contract on the transfer of the right of farmland, which is a contract, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above contract is null and void.

Furthermore, if a contract for the transfer of the above consignment cultivation right is null and void, the Defendants asserted that they are jointly and severally obligated to pay 44 Gama in 000,000,000, but the above compensation agreement is null and void as stated earlier. However, Defendant 1 returned and paid 22 Gama to the Plaintiff as restitution to the Plaintiff, and the market price of 10,000 Gama as of November 7, 1986 is the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 1,540,000 won in 70,000 won per 1 ma,000,0000 won per 1 ma, if it is impossible to enforce compulsory execution against the above00 (the Plaintiff’s attorney is entitled to claim 250% per annum from the day following the date of the above delivery of the complaint against the above 100,0000 won and there is no other claim for damages for delay as to the above portion of the claim for delivery of interest.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder of the claim against the defendant 1 and the claim against the defendant 2 are dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation cost, Article 199 (1) of the Civil Execution Act to the declaration of provisional execution, Article 6 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.

Judges Yoon Jin-Jin