(a) Scope of application of Article 17 of the Farmland Creation Act;

(b) Certification required of the competent government office for the location of the farmland reclaimed after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act;

A. Article 17 of the Farmland Creation Act is applicable to the sale and purchase of land, the reclamation of which is completed and the completion of which is authorized, and thus, is not applicable to the transfer of permission for reclamation.

B. Since it is clear in light of the provisions of Article 25-2 of the Farmland Reform Act that the farmland reclaimed after the date of promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act is not subject to the application of the said Act, the verification by the seat office is not required for the sale and purchase of such farmland.

(a) Article 17 of the Farmland Creation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 69Nu137 delivered on March 24, 1970

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1138 delivered on December 18, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The Defendant’s grounds of appeal (the grounds of appeal that was submitted after the lapse of the submission period are to the extent of supplement in case of the above grounds of appeal).

In light of the records, the court below's determination that the plaintiff purchased the above land from the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 who was entrusted with the disposal of the land of this case by the non-party 1, and that the above non-party 1 recognized the fact that the above land was trusted in trust to the defendant does not contain any errors of misconception of the facts due to the plaintiff's incomplete deliberation, such as the litigation, and violation of the rules of evidence, etc.

In addition, if the facts are the same as the original adjudication, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of termination of the trust as stated in the judgment of the court below on behalf of the above non-party 1, and it is also justifiable in the court below that accepted the plaintiff's claim of this case by subrogation. Article 17 of the Land Creation Act is related to the transfer of permission for reclamation, and thus, it is not applicable to the purchase and sale of the land of this case. In addition, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the land of this case was originally reclaimed, and the non-party 1 developed the land in return for the permission for reclamation under the Land Development Promotion Act of July 18, 1963 and obtained authorization for completion on December 2 of the same year. Thus, it is clear in light of the provisions of Article 25-2 of the Farmland Reform Act that there is no application of the Farmland Alteration Act to the land of this case after the date of its promulgation, and therefore, it is not necessary to prove that the land of this case is subject to the theory of law.

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.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)