Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Tae, Attorneys Park Sung-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2008Gadan65007 Decided September 24, 2009

July 9, 2010

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff 671 square meters prior to the same (number 2 omitted) as that of 1,749 square meters prior to the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 1 omitted), and shall pay to the plaintiff 67,801,800 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, after deducting the following supplementary statements from the lower court’s lower court’s second bottom. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

[Supplementary Provisions of this Court]

C. As to this, the Defendant argues to the effect that the Plaintiff did not legally acquire the ownership of the instant real estate since the Plaintiff did not attach the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland until the time of application for the registration of transfer of ownership. However, the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under Article 8(1) of the Farmland Act is attached to the application for the registration of ownership, and it is merely a document to prove that the person who acquired farmland has the qualification for acquisition of farmland, and it does not have the requisite to generate the legal act, etc. which constitutes the cause of acquisition of farmland (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59871, Jan. 27, 2006, etc.), and even if the Plaintiff did not obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for the instant real estate, it cannot be a justifiable ground for refusing the Plaintiff’s claim

D. Next, the Defendant: (a) leased the instant real estate from Nonparty 1, the former owner of the instant real estate, and occupied and used it on the ground by keeping a pre-sale method; (b) the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate and succeeded to the lessor’s status as to the instant land pursuant to Article 26 of the Farmland Act by acquiring it; (c) the Defendant contests to the purport that, as a lawful lessee or superficies of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the claim for the transfer of the instant land and the claim for the return of unjust enrichment until he receives the purchase price for the instant real estate from the Plaintiff; (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff is a person holding superficies of the instant real estate; and (b) there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant leased the instant real estate from Nonparty 1; and (c) it is difficult to readily believe that some of the entries of the instant real estate and the testimony of Nonparty 2 of the witness Nonparty 6-1 through 6-3, and there is no other evidence to support this.

2. Therefore, the judgment of the first instance, which accepted only a part of the Plaintiff’s remaining claim for return of unjust enrichment, is justifiable, and the Defendant’s appeal is rejected.

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge)