Whether the proof of the location agency is necessary for the transaction of farmland under the condition of siteization.

In the sale of farmland, a siteization has been traded under the condition of suspension, and where the land becomes a site within a short time, the certification of the location office is not necessary in the sale.

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court Decision 72Na193 delivered on December 26, 1972

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

Judgment on the Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 and 3 by the Defendants’ Attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below found that the 77th square meters of the site was originally divided due to the change of land category of 266 square meters. The above dry field 266 square meters as farmland devolving upon Defendant 2’s ownership was acquired on December 31, 1955, but the procedure for registration was not completed. Of this, 77 square meters of this site was specified on September 24, 1959, and it was sold to Nonparty 2 in the old 27,000 exchange. The non-party, who purchased the above land and sold it to the non-party 160 square meters of this case to the non-party 2. The non-party, who purchased it on August 10, 1962, did not have any error in the law regarding the fact that the non-party 2 purchased the above land on the ground that the non-party 1 purchased it on the non-party 1's own land and purchased it on the non-party 27,000 won of this case.

The judgment on the second ground for appeal;

In the original judgment, Defendant 2: (a) obtained demand for the transfer of ownership from several persons including the Plaintiff (the above Nonparty 1 removed and sold some other parts of the dry field 266 square meters) over several occasions from 1968 to 1969, Defendant 2: (b) confirmed each sales contract that the above Plaintiff and the purchaser of the land other than the Plaintiff would perform; (c) would have the purchaser confirm each sales contract that the above Plaintiff and the purchaser of the other land present while demanding the transfer of ownership; and (d) would make a payment of the inheritance tax on behalf of the Plaintiff; and (e) would return the certificate of redemption under the above Nonparty 1, and would have the above 10,000 won would be avoided on the face of the above 10,000 won on the face of the Plaintiff; and (e) did not accept the fact that the process for the transfer of ownership was established by pretending the sale to Defendant 1, his fraud, and thus, the original judgment is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence.

The judgment on the fourth ground for appeal

In the sale of farmland, if the land becomes a site within a short time after the sale of land as a condition of suspension, the sale shall be deemed the site, and even if there is no proof of the office having jurisdiction over the land site, the condition of suspension in the sale of farmland shall be determined by taking into consideration the location of the land, surrounding environment, and all other circumstances, even though there is no express agreement between the parties concerned. Therefore, the original judgment is justifiable in holding that in the same purport, if the land 266 square meters is purchased from the non-party 2 and the land was constructed and resided on the land, and the land and the house are purchased by the plaintiff, the proof of the office having jurisdiction over the sale of the land is not required, and since there is no error in the process of fact-finding, it shall not be admitted only as a reading part of the grounds for appeal No. 1.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)