Purchase and sale of farmland premised on siteization and certification of farmland;

If the Defendants grow as farmland without carrying out the work of siteization until ten years have passed since there was a sale and purchase or donation contract on the premise that this farmland will be converted into a site, even if the Defendant did not carry out the siteization work on the ground that the farmland was not delivered, it cannot be seen as a sale and purchase of farmland. Therefore, there should be farmland certification regarding the sale and purchase.

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1690 Delivered on October 18, 1966

Gyeongnam-do

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court Decision 66Na192 delivered on September 23, 1966

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Of the original judgment, the part against the Defendants is reversed;

The duplicate shall be returned to the Busan District Court Panel Division.

(1) We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

After the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, it is impossible for the Plaintiff to sell or purchase farmland only without proof of the office located in the location of the land stipulated in Article 19 (2) of the same Act. However, only when the purchaser purchased or sold the farmland for the purpose of converting the land into the site after the purchase or sale, it shall be deemed as the purchase or sale of the land, and there is no such proof as to the land. The purchaser shall be the State or public organization, and there is no legal reason to recognize the effect of the purchase or sale differently (Supreme Court Decision 66Da1690 delivered on October 18, 196). According to the facts acknowledged by the court below as legitimate, since the contract is not valid for the purchase or sale of the farmland only after the purchase or sale of the land, it shall be deemed that there is no separate opinion from the above 30-year Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gun, Do, 300 p.m., 644, which is farmland, and the remaining 300-year Special Metropolitan City, which is still 1500.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's legal representative. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below as lawful, the siteization work has not been conducted until the ten years have passed since the contract was concluded, as stated in the above (1). However, since the defendants did not transfer the original farmland as farmland, it is currently cultivated as farmland, and even if the defendant did not perform siteization work due to the relation that the defendant did not transfer the original farmland, such as family litigation theory, even if the defendant did not perform siteization work, it is a separate issue about the existence of civil liability, unless there are any special circumstances, to the extent that it can only be seen as farmland transaction, as stated in the above (1). Thus, the plaintiff cannot acquire farmland as farmland on the records, and it is clear that the plaintiff does not have the ability to obtain farmland as farmland on the ground of the above (1). However, even though the contract on the premise that the original judgment is still farmland, the judgment of the court below does not have any illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's claim against the land sale on the premise that the plaintiff's claim should not be justified.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong