Whether certification of farmland sale is necessary in the case of temporary cultivation of a site.

A person who temporarily leases a land which is a land category shall use it as a dry field, and the land is converted to the previous one, and it is not necessary to prove the permission of the purchase and sale of farmland in the auction.

Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da682 Delivered on November 24, 1964

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 79Ra108 Decided January 23, 1979

The reappeal is dismissed.

(1) The grounds of reappeal are examined as follows.

The summary of the first ground for reappeal is that the category of land on the registry is the site in the Ssung-gun (No. 1 omitted) which is the successful real estate in this case, but the fact is cultivating ginseng as a dry field, so it is the purport that it is against the Farmland Reform Act, which permits the successful bid without proof when it is required to prove the permission of the purchase and sale of farmland.

According to the real estate lease and appraisal report (record 46 pages), the land of this case was leased for about 45 square meters prior to (No. 2 omitted), (No. 3 omitted), and 1393, and was cultivated on the ground of the ginseng association for about 5 years, and it was possible to find out that it was cultivated on the ground. As such, the person who temporarily borrowed the land used it as a dry field and it is not recognized that the land was converted into a dry field and the certification of farmland purchase and sale is necessary. Accordingly, the order of the court below to this purport is just and it is not recognized that there was a violation of the No. 1 of the No. 3388, Dec. 2, 201.

(2) We examine two grounds for reappeal.

The second ground for re-appeal is that there is an error of law indicated as non-taxation, although there is no excessive investigation on the site in the public notice of the auction date of this case.

According to the records, this site is non-taxable, and it is not reasonable to discuss that this site is proved by the Tai-gun's colon.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Do-ho (Presiding Justice)