The nullity of farmland sale and good faith principle at the time of enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act;

Even if selling farmland which was not self-sufficient at the time when the Farmland Reform Act was enforced after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, is null and void as it goes against Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act, the seller's assertion of invalidity against the buyer is contrary to the principle of good faith.

Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 2(1) of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant Kim Jong-si, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 76Na1130 delivered on September 9, 1977

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

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

(1) The court below did not exercise the right to ask for stone from the date before and after the sunset to 1964, and there is no reason for illegality. Rather, according to the facts duly admitted by the court below, it is the purport that the non-party 1, the fleet owner of the defendant 1, was growing the land of this case in the non-party 2 test, the plaintiff's network father, and continues to grow the land (1964) after purchasing March 7, 1950.

(2) In addition, there is no reason to believe that, in comparison with the record of the above facts recognized by the court below, there is no error in matters of misconception of facts in violation of the logical or empirical rules in the preparation of evidence, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence.

(3) It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s assertion of invalidation against the seller and the buyer as the seller’s objection, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion of invalidation is null and void since the Plaintiff’s net father sold the farmland in this case, which was not self-finite at the time when the Farmland Reform Act was enforced, to the Defendant’s preemptive preference, would be contrary to Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 73Da152, Jul. 24, 1973). Therefore, the lower court cannot be said to have erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of the Farmland Reform Act or the Civil Act.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)