Effect of a farmland sales contract concluded by a company which cannot acquire farmland

Even if a stock company aimed at manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical products, manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical ingredients, selling pharmaceutical materials, importing and selling pharmaceutical products, etc. entered into a farmland sales contract, it is impossible to obtain ownership of farmland as a result, since it cannot obtain certification of farmland sale under the Farmland Reform Act or the Farmland Lease Management Act, so the seller of farmland cannot obtain ownership of farmland. Therefore, the obligation of the seller of farmland to transfer ownership to the buyer according to the sales contract shall be deemed to be an original impossibility of performance, and therefore, a farmland sales contract aimed at providing original impossible benefits shall not be void as a bond contract

Article 546 of the Civil Act, Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 19 of the Farmland Lease Management Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da1427 delivered on May 11, 1976 (Gong1976, 9183) (Gong1983 delivered on February 14, 1989) 92Da34773 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2385)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Kim Tae-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

202.24

Incheon District Court Decision 93Na3097 delivered on February 25, 1994

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff sold the farmland and forest of this case to the defendant who is a stock company, and rejected the plaintiff's above assertion on the premise that the above sales contract cannot take effect as a bond contract between the parties to the farmland transaction, on the ground that the defendant's legal entity cannot obtain the certification of the location agency under the Farmland Reform Act, and thus, since the plaintiff's obligation to transfer ownership of the farmland of this case is entirely impossible, most of the farmland of this case is null and void, and therefore the plaintiff is not obligated to transfer ownership of the farmland of this case and forest of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is no longer obligated to transfer ownership of the farmland of this case against the defendant.

(2) However, according to the records, the defendant can be found to be a corporation with the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale of medicines, manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical ingredients, and importing and selling pharmaceutical products. Even if such corporation entered into a farmland sales contract, it cannot obtain a certificate of farmland sale under the Farmland Reform Act or the Farmland Lease Management Act, and as a result, it cannot obtain ownership of farmland. Therefore, the plaintiff's obligation to transfer ownership to the defendant who is the purchaser of farmland pursuant to the sales contract shall be deemed to be an original impossibility of performance. Accordingly, the sales contract of the farmland of this case for the purpose of providing original impossibility shall not be deemed to be null and void as a bond contract.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant still remains effective as a claim contract even if the defendant, who is the buyer of the farmland of this case, is a legal person, and thus, the obligation of the plaintiff's transfer of ownership cannot be deemed to be an original impossibility. The purchaser erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the contract of farmland purchase as a legal person or the validity of the legal act aimed at the original Blue performance. The argument on this point has

However, if the part of the agreement on the farmland of this case is null and void because the ownership transfer registration for the farmland of this case was originally impossible in the sales contract for the farmland of this case and forest land of this case, in such a case, it shall be deemed null and void in principle pursuant to Article 137 of the Civil Act. However, if it is deemed that a juristic act was performed even without the invalid part, the remaining part shall be deemed null and void. Thus, the court shall examine whether the original and the defendant entered into the sales contract even for forest land of this case, and determine whether the whole conclusion of the sales contract

(3) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)