The validity of a farmland sales contract without certification of farmland;

In the case of farmland sale, if there is no proof of the agency where the farmland is located, the change of real right is effective as a bond contract between the parties to the purchase and sale even though there is no room for the effect of the change of real right.

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da536 Decided October 1, 1964

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 66Na194 delivered on November 10, 1966

The original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal:

The original judgment did not have sufficient evidence to acknowledge that Nonparty 1 had the burden of proving the government office located in the location under the Farmland Reform Act in purchasing this land from Nonparty 2 to the deceased Nonparty 2, and thus, the above sales contract alone did not acquire the buyer’s right to cultivate the farmland in this case, and accordingly, the Defendant was obligated to deliver this land to the Plaintiffs on the ground that the Defendant did not have lawfully acquired the right to cultivate the farmland in this case.

However, even if there is no proof of the office located in the location under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act in the sale of farmland and there is no room for a change in real rights to take effect, even if the change in real rights takes effect as a bond contract between the parties to the sale and purchase, the seller is obligated to deliver the farmland due to the performance of obligation, and the transaction with the deceased non-party 2 and the non-party 1 is recognized, and if the fact of the exchange contract between the non-party 1 and the defendant is acknowledged, the defendant can file an objection against the deceased non-party 2 or the plaintiffs on behalf of the non-party 1, so the defendant can not file an objection against the defendant, even though the plaintiffs cannot file an objection against the defendant, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the validity of the sales contract without the proof of the office located in the location, and the appeal against this point is justified.

Therefore, according to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.