(a) Where the registration of ownership transfer is requested on the grounds of a sales contract for farmland concluded without obtaining the certification of the location office, the time limit for obtaining such certification;

(b) Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act shall apply where the land on which farmland had been located was converted into a site and has been restored to farmland again.

A. In a case where a purchaser claims the performance of the ownership transfer registration procedure against a seller on the grounds of a sales contract for farmland concluded without obtaining the certification of the location office under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, the above certification should not be obtained until the conclusion of the pleadings at least by the fact-finding court.

B. If the land which had been farmland at the time of the sale contract was de facto converted into a site, and is restored to farmland and cultivated by the seller by the time of the closing of argument in the court below, the sale contract for the said land shall be deemed to be the sale and purchase of farmland. Therefore, the proof of the location government office is required for the registration

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da1092 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2341), 91Da33872 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1837), 92Da28921 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3287) B. Supreme Court Decision 66Da2137 delivered on February 21, 1967 (Gong155, 124), 80Da2506 delivered on March 24, 1981 (Gong1981, 1384), 91Da34219 delivered on December 13, 191 (Gong192, 511)

Shinyang Co., Ltd.

Defendant 1 and 5 Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Suwon District Court Decision 92Na6324 delivered on May 18, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed the following facts: (a) based on the macro evidence, the Plaintiff Company purchased the instant farmland adjacent to the instant land from residents for tourism business and newly built a weekend farm, and then buried the instant land cultivated by the Defendant to use it as a parking lot; (b) the Plaintiff Company’s executive officers were detained on charges of illegal diversion of farmland and construction without permission of the weekend farm; (c) the Plaintiff Company’s construction of the weekend farm was removed by administrative vicarious execution; (d) the relevant parties, including the Plaintiff Company’s representative director, were located without paying the remainder of the land to the sellers including the Defendant; and (e) the sellers including the Defendant submitted an application to the Government, notified the Plaintiff Company to restore the land of this case, including the instant land purchased by the Plaintiff Company, to its original state as farmland; and (e) restored the instant land to the return of the instant land, etc., and cultivated it until now.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no argument to the effect that the court below did not properly examine the land on the premise that the land of this case was actually commercialized at the time of concluding the sale and purchase contract of this case as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

2. The purport of Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is that the proof of a location agency under Article 19(2) cannot bring about the effect of ownership transfer due to sale and purchase, and even if the effect of ownership transfer cannot take place between the parties to a farmland transaction, as in the instant case, even if the purchaser claims against the seller on the ground of a farmland sale and purchase contract executed without the proof of the location agency under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, the fact that the purchaser must obtain the said certification at least until the closure of the pleadings at the fact-finding court, is the established opinion of the party members (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu3208, Dec. 20, 198; 91Da10992, Aug. 13, 191; 91Da3872, May 12, 1992; 200Da33872, Feb. 12, 1992).

3. The fact that the parties to the sale and purchase the farmland on the premise of siteization for the purpose of siteization, and that the sale and purchase shall be regarded as the site only when the siteization work is carried out within a short time after the sale and it shall be regarded as the valid sale and purchase even if there is no proof of the location government office as stipulated in Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act concerning the farmland, as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit.

However, as determined by the court below, if the land in this case, which was farmland, was actually converted into the land, was restored to the land again, and is cultivated by the defendant not later than the closure of the pleadings in the court below, the sales contract for the land in this case cannot be deemed to be the sale of farmland. Therefore, it is just that the court below determined that the above proof is necessary for the claim for ownership transfer registration based on the sale of the land in this case as farmland, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity

4. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)