(a)where a party seeks the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure by means of a lawsuit for the present performance on the grounds of the farmland sales contract executed without obtaining the certification of the office at which the location is located, the time of obtaining the certification;

(b) A book of request for ownership transfer registration on the condition that the certificate of farmland sale is issued;

A. The purport of Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is that the proof of a location agency’s office under Article 19(2) cannot bring about the effect of transfer of ownership due to the purchase and sale of farmland, and it does not bring about the effect of transfer of ownership as a claim contract between the parties to the transaction of farmland, even though the validity of the contract cannot take place between the parties to the transaction of farmland, if the purchaser claims against the seller for the implementation of the current performance without the certificate of the location agency, the purchaser may be admitted only by obtaining the certificate of the location office until the closure of pleadings

B. The buyer, such as Paragraph (a), may, to the extent necessary, file in advance a claim for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on farmland, subject to the issuance of a certificate of farmland sale by a future performance suit.

(b)Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da28921 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 1837), Supreme Court Decision 93Da30747 delivered on October 8, 1993 (Gong1993, 3051 delivered on July 29, 1994) (Gong1994Ha, 2236)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellant Lee-woo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 93Na10726 delivered on July 15, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The purport of Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is that the proof of a location agency under Article 19(2) cannot bring about the effect of the ownership transfer due to the sale and purchase of farmland, and it does not bring about the effect of the ownership transfer as a claim contract between the parties to the farmland transaction. However, where the purchaser claims against the seller for the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure on the ground of the present performance without the certification of the location agency, the purchaser may accept the ownership transfer registration procedure on the ground of the farmland sale and purchase contract executed without the certification of the location agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da28921, Oct. 27, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 91Da33872, May 12, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 91Da10992, Aug. 13, 191). However, the above purchaser can claim for the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure on the condition that the ownership transfer is issued by the future performance lawsuit.

However, according to the records of this case, the plaintiff is seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the land of this case, which is farmland on the ground of sale on June 22, 1985, by the current performance lawsuit, and the plaintiff is not seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the above sale on the condition that the certificate of the seat office is issued in the future performance lawsuit. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be accepted unless there is no proof that the certificate of the seat office was issued until the closing of argument in the court below

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that there is no proof of the location government office is just, and there is no error as to the theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)