Whether it is necessary to prove the purchase and sale of farmland at the auction of land which is not farmland because the land category has been previously formed but is an objective phenomenon.

If the land category of the land, which is the object of auction, is the whole land category, but is not used as farmland because it is de facto becoming a site and is not used as farmland, and it is not farmland subject to the Farmland Reform Act, it may not be denied the adjudication on the ground that the highest auction of the land did not submit a certificate of sale of farmland under the Farmland Reform Act.

Article 640 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 86Ra407 Dated November 13, 1986

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, since farmland under Article 2 of the same Act, which is subject to the Farmland Reform Act, is considered to be only farmland in an objective condition, which can achieve the purpose as farmland regardless of its formal land category, and considering the urban planning confirmation center issued by the head of Gangnam-gu, the response to imposition of farmland tax and the report on installation of storage space and the result of field inspection in the court below, the land in this case is incorporated into a development restriction zone under urban planning, and two factories are constructed on the land, and the remaining parts of the building owner are also used as a factory, such as the substitute stone storage, etc., and it is recognized that the land in this case, which is real estate for auction purpose, is not farmland subject to the Farmland Reform Act because it is an objective phenomenon of the land, and is not farmland subject to the Farmland Reform Act, so the highest bidder of the land in this case cannot reject the adjudication of auction just because he did not submit the certificate of farmland under the Farmland Reform Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the permission of auction price in this case.

In addition, the Re-Appellant's assertion that the successful bid price is unfairly low compared to the market price is clear in light of the provisions of Articles 13 and 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits, and therefore, the re-appeal against this point is not justified and therefore there is no reason to do so.

Therefore, the reappeal of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)