(a) The validity of a sales contract where there is no proof of the location agency at the time of concluding the farmland transaction contract;

(b) Where farmland is converted into a site or is included in an urban planning zone, whether the Farmland Reform Act is applied; and Article 27 subparagraph 1 of the Farmland Reform Act applies to the scope of application of the prohibition of sale;

A. The certification of the location office under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is not required only at the time of conclusion of the farmland trade contract, but also at the time of conclusion of the contract, the transaction, which is a bond contract, is not invalid on the ground that there is no proof of the location

B. In a case where farmland has been converted into a site or is included in an urban planning zone (However, according to the proviso of Article 87(1)3 of the Urban Planning Act amended by Act No. 4427, Dec. 14, 1991; excluding the case where farmland within a green belt is not necessary for an urban planning project), the application of the Farmland Reform Act is excluded, and the government office at the seat of farmland

C. Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act prohibits the sale and purchase of farmland which is not self-sufficient at the time of promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, and does not apply to the sale and purchase of farmland which is already repaid or excluded from farmland which has been distributed and paid in accordance with the above Act.

(b)Article 19, Section 2(b) of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 87, Section 1, 3(c) of the Urban Planning Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Da971 Decided April 28, 1987 (Gong1987, 865). 90Ma679 dated October 11, 1990 (Gong1990, 2266) decided November 6, 1990 (Gong1991, 34) 93Da1411 Decided April 13, 1993 (Gong1993, 1396) (Gong1396) decided November 23, 1965

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Supreme Court Decision 90Da7364 Delivered on February 12, 1991

Changwon District Court Decision 91Na1107 delivered on September 17, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Defendants’ ground of appeal Nos. 2 and Defendants’ attorney Nos. 1 and 2

The court below held that the non-party 1, a real estate broker, purchased the land of this case on behalf of the plaintiff on January 8, 1983 from the defendant 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter the defendant 1 et al.) on behalf of the plaintiff, but recognized that the purchaser's name was stated as "○○○," a processed object," and barring special circumstances, the defendant 1 et al. is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership for the sale of this case's land. In light of the records, the above determination of the court below is just and acceptable, and even if the plaintiff's purchase of the land of this case was proper in purchasing the land of this case's farmland as at the time when the plaintiff was not a farmer, it cannot be said that the purchase of the land of this case does not violate the social order, and therefore, it cannot be accepted by the court below's decision or by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the validity of buying and selling the land of this case's, origin and equity.

2. As to the Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 1 and Defendants’ attorney No. 3

The proof of the location government office under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is not required at the time of conclusion of the farmland purchase and sale contract, but it is not required at the time of conclusion of the farmland purchase and sale contract, which is a bond contract, which is not invalid because there is no proof of the location government office at the time of conclusion of the contract, and where farmland has been converted into a site or is included in the urban planning zone (However, according to the proviso of Article 87(1)3 of the Urban Planning Act amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191, it is excluded where the application of the Farmland Reform Act is excluded if the farmland is not necessary for the urban planning project as farmland within a green belt) and the proof of the government office located in the farmland sale is not required (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Da2518, Feb. 24, 19

In addition, Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act prohibits the sale and purchase of farmland which is not self-sufficient at the time of promulgation of the Farmland Reform Act, and it does not apply to the sale and purchase of farmland which has been repaid and paid in accordance with the above Act or excluded from farmland subject to distribution.

According to the facts established by the court below, the land of this case is farmland which was repaid after distribution or excluded from farmland subject to distribution, and the phenomenon of Defendant 1 et al. was turned into land or miscellaneous land due to the change of the form and quality of Defendant 4, the use of which was currently included in the urban planning zone and is designated as a natural green belt, and there is little possibility that the land of this case will be used for actual cultivation in the future. In addition, according to the records, since the land of this case is located in the Busan Tourist Complex, it can be said that there is a road as an urban planning facility on some ground, and the land of this case is necessary for the urban planning project. Thus, the court below did not apply Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act to the land of this case, and there is no need for proof of the location of the government office with respect to the above sales contract. It is just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the Farmland Reform Act, such as theory of lawsuit.

3. As to the defendants' grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 4, and 5

The court below held that the above non-party 1, who was authorized by the plaintiff to purchase the land of this case, cannot be deemed to have the right to represent the disposal of the land of this case, and that the defendant 4 cannot be deemed to have a justifiable ground to believe that the above non-party 1 had the right to dispose of the land of this case in light of the reasons stated in its reasoning. This is just in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remanding the party members, and even if the evidence submitted after the remand was examined together,

In addition, the above "○○○" merely refers to the plaintiff and cannot be deemed as the trustee of the plaintiff, and even after examining the record, it does not seem that accepting the plaintiff's claim of this case would protect only real estate investors, and it would result in a violation of the principle of good faith.

In conclusion, we cannot accept the conclusion of the judgment below that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to representation, title trust, and breach of the good faith principle.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)