(a) Whether there is a legal interest in claiming the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration to the owner at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act on behalf of the State by a person who purchased distributed farmland from such distributor and completed repayment thereof

B. Whether an unincorporated association under the Farmland Reform Act is entitled to purchase farmland (negative)

C. The validity of the sale of distributed farmland prior to the completion of repayment under the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 561 of Oct. 13, 1960)

A. According to Articles 15, 16, and 16-2 of the Farmland Reform Act, when the State registers the transfer of ownership to farmland distributors, it does not require the interim registration of state names as well as the cooperation of owners at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. As such, the State does not need to seek implementation of the procedure for the transfer of ownership based on purchase under Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act against the owner at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act with respect to farmland already distributed to others and the repayment of which has already been completed, and is sufficient by filing a claim for the transfer registration based on the completion of payment. Therefore, there is no legal interest in filing a lawsuit against the State to perform the procedure for the transfer of ownership against the owner at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act on behalf of the State.

B. The qualification of a person eligible to purchase farmland under the Farmland Reform Act is limited to a farmer who is or will be a farmer at the time of sale and purchase, and a farmer referred to in the same Act is limited to a natural person, and therefore an unincorporated association is not eligible to acquire farmland.

C. Since the sale and purchase of farmland distributed pursuant to Article 16 of the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by the proviso of Act No. 561 of Oct. 13, 1960) was prohibited until the completion of the repayment, the sale and purchase of the farmland distributed prior to the completion of the repayment is null and void. However, under the condition that the completion of the repayment is suspended, the sale and purchase of the farmland actually not delivered to the purchaser until the completion of the repayment is completed, or the non-farmlandization not governed by the Farmland Reform Act is a condition that the payment is suspended, and the said condition is not fulfilled within the short period of time

(a) Articles 15, 16 and 16-2(b) of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 11(c) of the Farmland Reform Act; Articles 16 and 19 of the Farmland Reform Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 70Da183 delivered on April 14, 1970, Supreme Court Decision 66Da736 delivered on July 5, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 66Da1427 delivered on October 18, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 66Da2137 delivered on February 21, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 64Da1909 delivered on December 26, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 69Da1627 delivered on November 25, 1969

Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant in Daegu Metropolitan City

Defendant 1 and five defendants, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other

Daegu High Court Decision 86Na494 delivered on January 19, 1988

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The judgment of the court of first instance regarding Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 shall be revoked, and the lawsuit against the above Defendants shall be dismissed.

All costs incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The case against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

1. The part of the judgment below as to the above Defendants is examined ex officio before viewing the grounds of appeal by Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6’s attorney.

In accepting the Plaintiff’s claim against the above Defendants, the lower court determined as follows. Since the land set forth in Articles 1 through 4 of the real estate list of the lower judgment was a non-owned farmland owned by Defendant 6 at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, each of the land set forth in Articles 1, 3, and 4 was purchased from the State as part of 1,140 in Seo-gu ( Address 1 omitted) Seo-gu) No. 1,140 prior to the subdivision of the said Act, and the State was divided into pieces while distributing the land to Nonparty 1. The land set forth in Articles 2 and 50 was purchased from the State as well as the land set forth in the above Act, and the land set forth in Articles 5 through 10 was distributed to Nonparty 2 at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and the land set forth in Articles 5 and 4 were owned by the State as part of the above Act set forth in 2,896 square meters before the completion of the ownership transfer registration procedure for the repair of the land set forth in 15 minutes.

According to Articles 15, 16, and 16-2 of the Farmland Reform Act, when the redemption due to distribution of farmland purchased by the State is completed at the same time as the Farmland Reform Act enters into force, the head of Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon shall have ownership of the relevant farmland registered in the name of a cultivator directly. Therefore, when the State registers the ownership of farmland to farmland farmers, it does not require the interim registration of the state’s name and does not require the cooperation of the owners at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da183, Apr. 14, 1970). Accordingly, the State requested the State against the owners at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act against the State at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act for the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration due to purchase under Article 5 of the said Act, and any person who acquires the ownership of distributed farmland due to the completion of redemption against the State.

Therefore, the plaintiff asserts that the farmland distributed in this case was purchased from the lender and the repayment was completed, and the state has no legal interest in filing a lawsuit to implement the ownership transfer registration procedure against the owner of the farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act on behalf of the State. The judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of the farmland Reform Act and the legal interest in the lawsuit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3’s attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the land of this case was purchased from distributors of this case in order to make the land of farmland reservoir as the site of farmland reservoir before the completion of the repayment by the administrator of the water supply and repair village established for the purpose of reservoir creation as part of the Han-gu measure by the plaintiff, which was non-party 6 and the deceased non-party 3 purchased from the State as non-party 3 at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and was distributed to the non-party 1, etc. after the enforcement of the above Act, and that the above land was valid for a considerable period of time from May 20, 1958 to December 20, 195 after obtaining approval for the transfer of public land and the temporary repayment of distributed farmland from the Do governor around September 20, 1958 to December 20, 1968 after the completion of the repayment of the repair fraternity's name and the plaintiff's claim for the sale of this case was made in subrogation before the completion of the above repair village.

In addition, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the above land purchase and sale in the gold field was null and void, even though it is not a farmer under the Farmland Reform Act, if the purpose of acquiring farmland is to build the farm irrigation facilities and it is permitted in light of the purpose of legislation of the Farmland Reform Act in case where the repair fraternity is acquired by a repair fraternity composed of mongs, so it cannot be deemed null and void due to the acquisition of the above land in the repair fraternity as a non-farmer, and it can be deemed that the sale and sale of the above land was ratified as seen earlier

The qualification of a person eligible to purchase farmland under the Farmland Reform Act is limited to a natural person who is a scarcity farmer or a farmer at the time of sale and purchase, and is a farmer as referred to in the above Act. Thus, if an unincorporated association is established in the wind adjudication era, it cannot be said that the scarke River Maintenance System is eligible to acquire the farmland of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4287Da119, Mar. 31, 195; Supreme Court Decision 66Da736, Jul. 5, 1966; Supreme Court Decision 75Da1427, May 11, 197; 75Da1627, Oct. 13, 1960; 196Da1667, Oct. 16, 1967; 2016Da166979, Jun. 16, 197; 2016Da1961697, which was declared as void.

Therefore, if the purchase and sale of the distributed farmland prior to the completion of the repayment was fulfilled with the condition of suspension of the non-farmlandization and the completion of the repayment, the sale is recognized regardless of whether the purchaser is a farmer or not.

In the case of this case, the sale and purchase of the land of this case between the Geumbong-Land Repair System and the farmland water distributors are valid only when it is deemed to be a contract with non-farmland conversion and redemption completion condition not subject to the Farmland Reform Act. Therefore, the court below cannot see the plaintiff's assertion as to the validity of the sale and purchase contract of this case without examining and determining whether the sale and purchase contract of this case is valid as a condition of suspension for non-farmland and redemption or whether the condition of suspension was fulfilled as a condition of suspension.

3. As seen above, since the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendants 4, 5, and 6 is deemed sufficient to be judged directly by the members, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit against the above Defendants is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the losing party. Of the judgment below, with respect to the part concerning Defendants 1, 2, and 3 among the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of farmland sale and its failure to exhaust all deliberations, and this constitutes Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)