The validity of a contract to donate another farmland in the event of a default of a contract for writing on farmland;

In a case where a farmland owner purchases another farmland instead of selling it to the other party, and the farmland owner agrees to donate part of the farmland originally being small to the tenant in the event that he/she fails to perform the above contract, the above contract for small-scale and the above-mentioned donation contract on the premise thereof are all null and void in violation of Article 17 of the Farmland Reform Act.

Article 17 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1055 delivered on February 9, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1971Da1971 delivered on March 23, 1965, Decision 64Da1970 delivered on March 23, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1841 delivered on March 18, 197, Decision Article 17(9) of the Farmland Reform Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (70 Ghana1733)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership on September 1, 1968 with respect to the plaintiff's 6th 5th 186 and 6th 685th , Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-si, 685.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

In light of the whole purport of testimony and oral argument as stated in the purport of this claim No. 1 (written evidence) which is the fact that two parcels of land, including this case, the plaintiff was owned by the defendant, without dispute between the parties, and which can be recognized to be genuine by the testimony of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3 of the original trial witness, the plaintiff is bound to purchase the above three parcels of land from December 1, 1958 to September 1, 1961 instead of selling the above three parcels of land, including this case, the defendant purchased it from September 1, 1963 to the plaintiff, and thus, it is clear that the plaintiff agreed that the non-party 1,40 pieces of land will be donated to the plaintiff, and that the defendant did not perform the above agreement after the testimony of the non-party 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the improvement of the original purport of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be dismissed by the plaintiff's conclusion that the above three pieces of land will be null and void.

Judges Lee Jung-gu (Presiding Judge)