Even if there is no proof by the farmland location office under Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act, a protocol stating the recognition of the ownership transfer registration claim shall not be null and void.

There is no proof of the location of the farmland office prescribed in this Article, a protocol in which the recognition of the ownership transfer registration is stated, shall not be null and void.

Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Cheongju District Court Decision 67Na182 delivered on September 18, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are as follows:

In accordance with the letter of recognition and recognition between the non-party and the defendant, even if there was no proof of the location agency under Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act in the procedure beyond the non-party's ownership registration of the land in question, whether there was no such proof exists is not the matter of the court's ex officio investigation, but merely an attack and defense material of the party. In addition, even if the above recognition and recognition protocol is null and void because there was no proof of the location agency, it cannot be said that the protocol with the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment is null and void even if it is invalid, and the defendant is not the title holder of the registration, and the defendant is not the title holder of the registration, and thus the defendant's obligation to perform the registration is not impossible, and the conclusion that

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

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Gyeong-ri, Kim & Kim