Whether a donation contract becomes effective where a donee files a claim for ownership transfer registration under a donation contract after the farmland law was repealed and enforced (negative) is enforced by a general corporation which is unable to obtain the certification of farmland trade at the time of the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act (negative)

Article 546 of the Civil Act, Article 19 of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The original foundation of social welfare foundation (Attorney Park Jong-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2006Na7144, 10553 Decided June 14, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party to the non-party (hereinafter "the deceased") donated each of the above farmland of this case to the plaintiff (the counter-party to the lawsuit; hereinafter "the plaintiff") for the purpose of social welfare business, such as child accommodation business, etc. around January 6, 1982, and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer with respect to each of the above farmland as the right holder on June 15 of the same year, and rejected the defendant (the counter-party to the lawsuit)'s assertion that the contract of this case is invalid because it falls under the non-exclusive impossibility of performance.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

According to the former Farmland Reform Act (amended by Act No. 4817 of Jan. 1, 1996 pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 4817 of Oct. 25, 1996) which was enforced at the time of the donation contract of this case, the Plaintiff, a general corporation, cannot obtain ownership of farmland as a result because it could not obtain certification of farmland sale under the Farmland Reform Act or the Farmland Lease Management Act, unless there are special circumstances, even if the Plaintiff entered into a farmland donation contract of this case. Thus, the obligation of the Plaintiff, a donor of farmland, to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff, who is the donee, pursuant to the above donation contract of this case, is original impossible, and therefore, each farmland donation contract of this case, the original purpose of which is impossible performance, is also null and void as a bond contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da18232, Oct. 25, 194). This does not change after January 1, 1996.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below, based on the premise that the donation contract of this case is valid as a bond contract, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the validity of the farmland donation contract which is a juristic person under the former Farmland Reform Act or the validity of a juristic act aiming at performance, which is an original impossibility, which affected

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)