Acquisition of farmland to be created as the site of non-farmers;

Even if the land phenomenon at the time of the sales contract is farmland, if the purchaser purchases the land to create it as the site, it cannot be determined that the acquisition of the ownership is null and void only because it is not a farmer under the Farmland Reform

Article 5 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Jeju District Court (70A620) in the first instance

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff

Defendant 1 is the Jeju District Court No. 6356 of Aug. 14, 1968 with respect to Jeju City No. 2492-2 prior to 1493, and the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership due to trade on August 6, 1968, and the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership due to the above real estate No. 4216 of receipt on April 29, 1969 by the same court, and the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership due to trade on February 28, 1969.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

Jeju, as stated in the purport of the claim as to the 1492 Before 2-2 of Orari 2492, the fact that the ownership transfer was made under the name of the plaintiff and the ownership transfer was again made under the name of the defendant two again has not been disputed between the parties in light of the purport of the pleading.

Although the Plaintiff did not sell the instant land to Defendant 1, the Defendant forged the relevant documents and completed the procedure for ownership transfer registration in its name. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s attorney asserted that it should be cancelled since the registration of invalidation of cause and the ownership transfer registration made to Defendant 2 should be invalidated; and

First of all, it is not sufficient to recognize that the registration of the transfer of electric power made by Defendant 1 is the registration of the invalidation of cause, and it is not possible to recognize the fact of the plaintiff's request even after examining all materials of the plaintiff's certificate, and the plaintiff's assertion is groundless without examining the remainder of the issue.

Then, even if Defendant 1 purchased the instant land from the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, he could not acquire the instant land because he was not a farmer of Japan since he had been residing in Japan from the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, in full view of the contents of Defendant 1's domicile in Japan as well as the contents of No. 6, it can be recognized that the instant land was incorporated into the urban planning zone as of December 19, 1967 and is currently designated as a planned land substitution, and there is no counter-proof and Defendant 1 purchased the instant land in order to create the land as farmland at the time of the sales contract, it cannot be concluded that the acquisition of ownership is null and void on the ground that it was not a farmer of the farmland Reform Act, so long as there is no special reason, the Plaintiff's assertion as to the invalidity of the registration of ownership transfer in violation of the Farmland Reform Act, which was made under Defendant 1's name.

Finally, the plaintiff 1 et al. cultivated the land of this case without cultivating it by the non-party 2. Thus, according to the provisions of Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act, the defendant cannot sell the land of this case which is not self-definite, and thus, the defendant 2 cannot sell the land of this case. Thus, the sale to the defendant 2 is null and void in violation of the above farmland Reform Act. Thus, the purport of prohibiting the sale and purchase of land which is not so-called self-definite under Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act is to prohibit the sale and purchase of land which is not self-definite at the time of its promulgation. The purpose of prohibiting the sale and purchase of land which is not self-definited under the same Act is to prohibit the sale and purchase of land which is not self-definited, and it does not constitute an invalid act in violation of the same Act. The plaintiff's assertion as to this point is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim shall be dismissed with the grounds for appeal. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same result is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the losing plaintiff.

Judges Noh Byung-man (Presiding Judge)