[1] Criteria for determining whether a farmland constitutes "farmland" under the Farmland Act

[2] The case holding that the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland is necessary for acquisition of farmland as farmland under the Farmland Act, in case where the farmland was permitted to divert farmland to a housing site in the name of a third party for the land the land category of which is the paddy field, but the change of the present condition

[1] Whether certain land is farmland under the Farmland Act shall be determined according to the actual state of the land concerned regardless of the land category in the public record book. In the case of land the category of which in the public record book is the land, if the change is a temporary change, and if the change is merely a temporary change, and if the change can be made easily to restore the land to the original state, the land is still a farmland under the Farmland Act.

[2] The case holding that the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for the government office where the acquisition of farmland is located is necessary, in case where the change is a temporary change in the current state because it is difficult to view that the farmland has already lost its character as farmland and has been de facto siteized merely because it was used as a camping ground, etc. on the summer, and even if it was not used for the cultivation of crops, it is not a solid structure on the land, but it is not a change in the current state because it was made due to a ground-breaking work, etc., and it is relatively easy to restore it to its original state.

[1] Article 2 of the Farmland Act / [2] Articles 2 and 8 of the Farmland Act, Article 633 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 86Ma1095 decided Jan. 15, 1987 (Gong1987, 617) Supreme Court Decision 97Da4291 decided Dec. 23, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 381) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu256 decided Apr. 10, 198 (Gong198Sang, 1365)

Re-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 98Ra534 dated September 2, 1998

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Whether certain land is "farmland" under the Farmland Act shall be determined according to the actual phenomenon of the land concerned regardless of the land category in the public register, and in the case of the land whose land category is the answer, even if the land category in the public register is changed as farmland, if the change is temporary, and if the change is only temporary, and if it is possible to facilitate the restoration to the original state as farmland, the land still constitutes farmland under the Farmland Act.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, since the land category Nos. 2 and 3 in the annexed list Nos. 2 and 3 in the judgment of the court below is land category as a answer and it is difficult to view that the land has already been lost and de facto siteized merely because it had been permitted to divert farmland in the name of 12 persons, such as non-party 1, etc., and even if each land was used as a camping pool, etc. in the summer for the last time, it is not used as a miscellaneous land, but as it is not used for the cultivation of crops, it seems that the change is relatively easy to restore the original state because no specific solid structure is constructed, and the phenomenon has been changed considerably. Therefore, the above land needs to obtain qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland as farmland under the Farmland Act, and the Re-Appellant, who is the highest bidder, is not entitled to purchase real estate under Article 633 subparag. 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, the decision of the court of first instance as to the above re-appellant's successful bid is cancelled and it is not justified in light of legal principles.

In addition, the ground for re-appeal is that once the permission to divert farmland was issued once the permission to divert farmland is revoked, the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland is not necessary until the permission to divert farmland is revoked. However, according to the records, the permission to divert the land of this case was already revoked, and there is no permission to divert farmland in relation to the re-appellant before the re-appellant who is the successful bidder obtains the permission to divert farmland. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted by considering it as a mother.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)