[1] Whether a legal act which constitutes a qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under the Farmland Act becomes effective (negative)

[2] In a case where the registration of ownership transfer has been made without the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland in the auction procedure for farmland, whether the acquisition certificate for acquisition of farmland can be subsequently completed (affirmative)

[1] Article 8 of the Farmland Act / [2] Article 8 of the Farmland Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da49251 delivered on February 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 897)

A purification company (Law Firm Samung, Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Seo-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea

Daejeon High Court Decision 2005Na1801 Decided March 30, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under the Farmland Act is a document to be attached when a person who acquires farmland applies for the registration of ownership, and it does not constitute the requirement that the person who acquired farmland has the qualification for acquisition of farmland, but does not have the effect of juristic acts such as sale and purchase, which is the cause of acquisition of farmland (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da49251, Feb. 27, 1998, etc.). Even if the decision of successful bid and payment of purchase price without such qualification certificate have been made in the auction procedure for farmland and the ownership transfer registration has been made accordingly, the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland shall be valid even after the completion

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim on the ground that even if the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland was submitted after the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership, the registration of transfer of ownership is valid and that defendant 1 and 2 constitutes a farmer who has the qualification for acquisition of farmland under the Farmland Act. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to farmland acquisition qualification

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)