The validity of a sales contract to which a sub-performance is made to a seller

A farmland sale contract that gives the seller the right of contract is null and void.

Articles 1 and 17 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1970 delivered on March 23, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 12Nu830 delivered on May 12, 1964, Article 17(9) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 17(5)1676 delivered on March 23, 1965)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others

Daejeon District Court (62, 657, Judgment) of the first instance court

1. This appeal is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The plaintiff's attorney filed a judgment that "as to 156-5 No. 156-5 No. 156 of Gongju-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Gongju-gun, Defendant 1 followed the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was received on August 3, 1961 by 3717 of Gongju-gun, Daejeon District Court's Gongju-gun, Daejeon District Court's Gong717, and (2) Defendant 2 entered into the ownership transfer registration (3) as the receipt of 706 as of January 30, 1962, as of 1123 of the receipt of 1962 as of February 22, 1962, Defendant 4 entered into the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration as of March 16, 1962. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc."

The defendant et al. attorney sought a judgment that "the original judgment is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. All costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances."

In light of the above legal principles as to the sale and purchase of farmland by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the plaintiff's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 1 and the plaintiff's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's counter-party 1.

The following assertion that the sale and purchase of farmland is null and void because there is no intention for the purchaser to cancel the right of purchase and sale of farmland. The defendant asserts that only small and medium-sized contract is null and void, and that the sale and sale contract itself is valid. Thus, if the contents of Gap 2-1 and 2 (Land Sales Contract) and the testimony of non-party 1 in the original judgment, it can be acknowledged that the non-party 3 purchased the original paper which he prepares from the plaintiff and then entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of farmland again with the plaintiff in the original condition that the non-party 1 would bring about the original act to the plaintiff. Thus, in light of the purpose set forth in Article 1-6 of the Farmland Reform Act and the prohibition of the farmland farming system set forth in Article 17 of the same Act, the plaintiff's claim for the sale and purchase of farmland shall be deemed null and void as it was concluded that the non-party 1 and the previous contract for sale and purchase of farmland shall not be deemed null and void after the execution of this Act.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)