The validity and ex officio investigation of the legal act to circumvent the Farmland Reform Act;

In order to escape from the purchase of non-self-owned farmland by the State under the Farmland Reform Act, the conclusion of a sales contract retrospectively after the enforcement of the Act is null and void as an act to deviate from the compulsory provisions, and even if the defendant was led to the confession that the date of the sale is prior to the enforcement of the Act, the provisions on the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act shall be deemed a mandatory provision, and it is also a matter to be investigated ex officio, so the court is not bound by the confession.

Article 1 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da104 decided Jun. 23, 1964 (Dakad 8092; Supreme Court Decision 12Nu191 decided Jun. 12, 199; Decision 16Da1625 decided Mar. 8, 1966); Decision 66Da2 decided Mar. 8, 1966 (Law No. 7905 decided Mar. 8, 196; Decision 265(5)962 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (64A734 delivered on April 1, 200)

The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership to the plaintiffs on the ground of sale as of June 1, 49 with respect to the 2,049 defendant's response No. 79, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu.

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

The defendant shall execute the procedure for the registration of ownership of each share of 2/9, 1, 4, 5, and 6 to the plaintiff 2 on the 3/9, 3, 1/9, 1/9, 1/9, and 1/9 on the above real estate for the completion of the statute of limitations on June 1, 59. The defendant shall execute the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate to the above plaintiffs on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations on the above real estate.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion is the deceased of the plaintiff 1, and the non-party 1, who is the son of the non-party 1, who had been cultivated before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act on June 1, 49, he purchased the land from 140,000 won (former monetaryization) and paid the price on August 23, 61, and he inherited the above land as the plaintiffs died on August 23, 61, and the plaintiffs inherited their legacy. The defendant did not perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the above land so far, and even if the defendant were to return the land to the defendant, as argued by the defendant, the defendant did not obtain any certification as prescribed by the Farmland Reform Act in acquiring the farmland ownership, and even if the defendant had already failed to pay the price for the above land, the contract is null and void, and the defendant has already made a statement that he had already lost the price for the above land.

According to the testimony of non-party 2, the land of this case was originally promulgated by the plaintiff's prior to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act as owned by the defendant, and even though this land was sold to the state by the state as a non-self-owned farmland under the same Act, the defendant and the deceased non-party 1 can recognize the fact that the land of this case was entered into a contract for the sale of the land of this case retroactively as of the day prior to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, which is a mandatory provision, to escape from the application of the Farmland Reform Act.

Therefore, the contents of No. 1 evidence No. 6 under the premise that it is valid with Gap evidence No. 1.1. The plaintiff's testimony that conflict with the above recognition cannot be considered as evidence to determine the above recognition even if the plaintiff 1, 3, and 4 did not believe the members of the court below, and there is no other evidence to determine the above recognition. However, on June 1, 49 of the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant presumed that the deceased non-party 1, the decedent 1, and the defendant purchased the land in this case on the condition that the purchase and sale was contrary to the truth, but the provisions on the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act should be considered as a mandatory provision, and since it should be examined ex officio, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1's possession of the land was non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 4, and the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, who purchased the land in this case on the premise that the plaintiff 1 had no ownership.

Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff et al. against the plaintiff et al. shall be dismissed without merit. The judgment of the court that forms the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)