Whether the certificate of sale and purchase of farmland is necessary when a farmland mortgagee acquires mortgaged farmland under the provisions of the Farmland Security Act.

When a farmland mortgagee acquires mortgaged farmland in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Farmland Security Act, it is not necessary to prove sale and purchase of farmland under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act.

Articles 2 and 4 of the Farmland Security Act, Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act

Strengthening Agricultural Cooperatives

Lighting;

Seoul District Court Incheon Branch Court Decision 77Gahap139 decided)

1. The appeal is dismissed.

However, the text of the original judgment shall be corrected as follows:

피고는 원고에게 경기 강화군 길상면 초지리 1124의 1 답 6,151평중 별지도면표시 ㄱ', ㄴ', ㄷ', ㄹ', ㅁ', ㄴ", ㄱ", ㅎ", ㅍ', ㅌ', ㄷ", ㄹ", ㅁ", ㅂ", ㅅ", ㅇ", ㅈ", ㅊ", ㅋ", ㅌ", ㅍ,ㅎ,ㄱ'의 각점을 순차로 연결한 (ㄷ)부분 1,344평을 인도하라.

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

The defendant delivered 1,344 square meters to the plaintiff from the 5,839 square meters of the 11124-1 response of the 1,34 square meters on the road surface of Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, to the plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second instances.

On the road of Gyeonggi-do 1,124-1,321/6,151 shares of the 6,151-1,324-1,321/6,151 shares of the non-party 1,322/6,151 shares of the non-party 72/6,61, the non-party 2,244,61 shares of the non-party 2,61 shares of the non-party 700/6,151 shares of the non-party 54 shares, the non-party 540/6,151 shares of the non-party 54 shares of the non-party 540/6,151 shares of the non-party 1,312/6,151 shares of the non-party 1,351 shares of the non-party 1,324 in the name of the non-party 1,3151 shares in the non-party 1,34,1977.

The defendant, a financial institution like the plaintiff, as a rule, may establish a security only for the real estate owned by the plaintiff when establishing a mortgage on the real estate as a security for the loan, and even if the plaintiff union is prohibited from establishing a security for co-ownership shares in violation of the above internal regulations, the plaintiff union established a mortgage on the share of only the last non-party who was one of the right holders of the land in this case and was voluntarily awarded a successful bid. Therefore, the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the land in this case under the name of the above plaintiff union is null and void, and therefore the plaintiff cannot acquire a share ownership on the land in this case because the registration of establishment of a mortgage is null and void, but even if the above establishment of a mortgage was made in violation of the above internal regulations and the above establishment of a mortgage was made, the above assertion is groundless.

In other words, the defendant cannot acquire the ownership of the share in the land of this case because it is not a farmer, and there was no certificate of sale of farmland in the office where the land of this case was located under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, the plaintiff union can become a mortgagee, and if there is no bidder in the auction in the case of execution of farmland mortgage, the mortgagee can take over the mortgaged farmland despite the provisions of the Farmland Reform Act. Therefore, if the mortgagee takes over the mortgaged land, it is not necessary to prove the transaction of farmland under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, according to the entry in the evidence No. 1 of this case No. 1 of this case, the plaintiff union's acquisition of ownership in the case of this case is clear by the defendant's own opinion that the ownership transfer registration was completed before the plaintiff due to the above auction, and there is no special reason to view that the plaintiff union is legitimate in this case's right to acquire the share in this case.

Finally, although the defendant asserts that the occupied part of the land in this case was legally purchased from the non-party Kim Jong-woo, the original owner, the original owner, it is not acceptable to accept the above argument.

Therefore, since the possession of the part of the defendant's land in this case is deemed to be illegal possession, the defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the above possession to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's objection to the plaintiff's claim for performance of this obligation is justified and the defendant's appeal against this is without merit, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by the losing party. However, although the decision of the court below was stated in 1,124-1,124-1, 5,839, 124-1, 124-34, 134, 14, 124-35, 114, 124-14, 124-1, 124-14, 124-1, 124-14, 124-14, 124-14, 124-14, 124-14, 125-14, 124-14, 124-14,24.

Judge Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)