The validity of a certificate of farmland issued by the deceased as a seller;

Any farmland certification indicating the deceased as a buyer shall not be null and void, nor any farmland certification with the deceased as a seller.

Article 6 (1) 1 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3369 delivered on December 29, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na369 delivered on December 29, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s Attorney

On December 24, 1956, after the death of the deceased, Nonparty 2, his wife, obtained the consent of Nonparty 3, who is the head of the family and the property heir of the deceased, and up to that time, can be recognized the fact that the name of the deceased was sold to Defendant 1 in the name of the deceased, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendant as of January 24, 1957, on the premise of the independent value judgment on the evidence. Thus, there is no ground to criticize the legitimate fact-finding, which is the whole subject matter of the original judgment, on the premise of the independent value judgment on the evidence.

Judgment on the second ground for the same reason.

In the certification of the farmland office located in accordance with Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, the purpose of the certification is that the non-party 1, the title holder on the register, has already died, and therefore, in the registration of transfer under the name of defendant 1, even if he directly registered the name of the deceased with the name of the deceased, the purchase of the farmland does not exceed three information, and the party members pointing out the theory also can not prove the fact under Article 6 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act as to the purchaser of the farmland in reality. Thus, it is clear that the farmland certification with the deceased as the purchaser cannot be proved in the same purport, and it is invalid. The theory that the farmland certification with the deceased as the seller is not invalid. In this case, it is clear that the non-party 1, the title holder on the register, has already died, and therefore, in the registration of transfer under the name of the deceased, even if he directly registered the name of the deceased with the name of the deceased, it cannot be argued as the opposing opinion.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu