logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1991. 11. 26. 선고 91다33094, 33100(병합) 판결
[당선무효확인등][공1992.1.15.(912),297]
Main Issues

The case holding that the issuance of the certificate of sale and purchase of farmland falls under the "land owner" under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, which provides for the qualification requirements for the members of the farmland improvement association even after the violation of Article 51 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland

Summary of Judgment

If a person who is not a farmer intends to submit a certificate of farmland purchase and sale to a third party after acquiring a certificate of farmland sale and completing the registration of ownership transfer, the case held that even if the provisions of Article 51 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act are violated, the above registration cannot be immediately null and void, and it constitutes a "land owner" under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, which provides for the qualification requirements of members of the above association, even if the whole family of the person intends to transfer a resident registration at the seat of farmland and the actual period of residence has

[Reference Provisions]

Article 5 (1) 1 and Article 19 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, Article 51 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee

Han River Farmland Improvement Association and one other

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na1044, 10451 decided August 20, 1991

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant union was established under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, and the qualification of the members of the defendant union was prescribed as those entitled to participate in farmland improvement projects under Article 5 (1) of the above Act, and that the head of the defendant union was appointed by the government on April 1, 1989, but the above Act was amended to allow the members of the farmland improvement association to be elected directly from among the members of the association, and it was enforced from July 1 of that year, as the articles of association stipulate that the head of the association and other officers of the association shall be elected at the general meeting as of the date of public announcement, and that the non-party's non-party's person who is not the member of the association shall not be eligible for election as of the date of public announcement, and that the defendant 2 obtained a certificate of ownership transfer from the non-party's head of the association and the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's head of the association on June 30, 1989, 1989.

In addition, if Defendant 2 purchased the above farmland and received a certificate of farmland sale and cultivated it after completing the registration of ownership transfer for the above reasons, even if he violated the provision of Article 51 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act that "if a person other than a farmer intends to submit a certificate of farmland sale, his family shall transfer his resident registration at the seat of farmland and the actual residence period has elapsed for six months, it shall be limited to the case where the entire family members have transferred his resident registration at the seat of farmland and the actual residence period has elapsed," the above registration shall not be immediately null and void. In addition, the above defendant constitutes "land owner" under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act as to the qualification requirements for the members of the defendant association, so the decision of the court below that Defendant 2 was eligible

The precedent of a party member is not appropriate in this case. All arguments are groundless.

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.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)

arrow