[1] In a case where a farmland transaction certificate was not obtained by the competent authority at the time of the purchase and sale of farmland, but the farmland thereafter became not subject to the Farmland Reform Act, whether the defect in certification is cured (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a sale contract for land subject to land transaction permission is concluded prior to the designation and public notice of a regulatory area, whether it is necessary to grant permission to the competent authority for transaction

[1] Even if the farmland was not certified by the government office at the time of the sale and purchase of the farmland, the defects of the government office at the seat are cured if the farmland was not subject to the Farmland Reform Act, and the farmland purchaser can complete the registration of ownership transfer even without the proof of the government office at the seat.

[2] If the execution date of a sale contract for the land located within the regulation area of land transaction permission under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is before the designation and public notice is made as a regulation area under the same Act, it is not necessary to obtain permission from the competent authority for the sale contract, and it is not required to obtain permission for the act of causing the sale after the designation and public notice of the regulation area

[1] Article 19 (2) of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [2] Article 21-2 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da6448 delivered on April 12, 1996 (1) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da2518 delivered on February 24, 1981 (Gong1981, 13741), Supreme Court Decision 94Da20501 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2622) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da33872 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 1837), Supreme Court Decision 93Da1411 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong193, 1396), Supreme Court Decision 92Da19419 delivered on November 23, 1993 (Gong193, 194Da196419 delivered on September 19, 195)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Defendant-Appellant, Attorneys Go Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na15720 delivered on December 28, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Even if the government office at the time of the sale and purchase of farmland did not obtain the certification of the farmland, the defect of the government office at the location is cured if the farmland is the land for which the Farmland Reform Act is not applicable, and the farmland purchaser can complete the registration of ownership transfer without the proof of the government office at the location (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da900, Apr. 28, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 80Da2518, Feb. 24, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 94Da20501, Sept. 9, 194; Supreme Court Decision 94Da20501, Sept. 1, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 9Da20501, Sept. 1, 1994). In addition, if the date of the conclusion of the sale and purchase contract for the land located within the regulation area under the Act on Land Transaction and Utilization, it is not necessary to obtain the permission of the competent government office regarding the above act of cause after the designation and announcement of the ownership transfer registration procedure under the purchaser’s name.

In this regard, the court below held that the land in this case was originally farmland but it was not subject to the regulation of the Farmland Reform Act, while the land in this case was designated and publicly announced as a land transaction permission area under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and it does not violate the Farmland Reform Act or the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and it does not constitute a juristic act against the anti-social order, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the above relevant laws and regulations.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the facts as follows. The defendants actually purchased the land of this case on October 27, 1981 and paid the purchase price. However, since the defendants did not exercise the right of full reservation for ten years, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant's exclusion period has elapsed by failing to exercise the right of full reservation for ten years, the court below's decision on May 23, 1994, since the provisional registration was made on May 23, 1994 on the ground that the above provisional registration was made on the ground of the complete decision of May 1, 1982 in accordance with the contents of the above written promise for purchase and sale since the defendants did not have the right of full reservation for ten years.

In addition, the court below confirmed the fact that the Defendants acquired and occupied the land in this case after the purchase, and determined that the claim for ownership transfer registration due to the sale does not extinguish by prescription. If the facts are the same, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the extinctive prescription of the right to claim ownership transfer registration

On the third ground for appeal

In light of the relevant evidence and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below that the defendants occupied the land of this case after purchasing it from the seller and leasing it to another person is acceptable, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)