Defendant

Delay :

Attorney Donm (National Assembly)

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Facts charged;

The Defendant: (a) around April 23, 1987, sold the above (number 1 omitted); (b) on June 28, 2005, the Defendant: (c) on the same Ri (number 2 omitted); (d) on the same Ri (number 3 omitted); (d) on the same Ri (number 3 omitted); (e) on the same Ri (number 3 omitted); (e) on the same Ri (number 4 omitted); and (e) on the previous 69 square meters purchased from Nonindicted 3, the Defendant sold the above (number 4 omitted); and (e) on the one hand, at the Myeon Office located in the Do Office where the said Eup was located in the erode of the Eup, the Defendant sold the said 69 square meters to Nonindicted 6; and (e) sold the registration of ownership transfer from the said registry office to Nonindicted 6 on the other hand on June 26, 2006; and (e) sold the remaining 69 square meters to Nonindicted 36 on the same day.

2. Determination

A person eligible to purchase farmland under the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 4817 of Jan. 1, 1996; hereinafter “former Farmland Reform Act”) is limited to a farmer or a person who intends to be a farmer, and even under the current Farmland Act, a person is not a person who uses or uses the farmland for his own agricultural management. Thus, even under the current Farmland Act, a victim company that purchased each farmland of this case for the purpose of using it as a passage cannot acquire ownership of each farmland of this case.

Therefore, a sales contract for the purchase of each of the instant farmland from Nonindicted 2 and 3, which was concluded by the victim company at the time of the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act, is null and void (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Da1128, Feb. 14, 1989; 2007Da46565, Dec. 28, 2007; 2007Da46565, 46572, Dec. 28, 2007; and it is difficult to view that a consignment relationship between the defendant and the victim company was established, and therefore, the defendant is not in the position of a person who

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case are not a crime or there is no proof of a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges O Tae-tae