In case where a sales contract for farmland under the Farmland Reform Act is concluded, whether one of the parties can compel the other party to perform his/her duty of cooperation without cooperating in the application procedure for the issuance of the certificate of farmland sale.

Even if a sales contract was concluded without obtaining a certificate of farmland sale as to the farmland stipulated in the Farmland Reform Act, the parties to the sales contract are obligated to cooperate with each other so that the contract can be completed as effective, and both parties to the sales contract are obligated to jointly apply for the certification of the location agency. One of the parties can compel the other party who does not cooperate in the procedure of application in violation of such obligation to perform the duty of cooperation.

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1159 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2341) 92Da56575 delivered on March 9, 1993

Maternus

Kim Heung-soo

Cheongju District Court Decision 9Na32 delivered on November 5, 1992

1. The judgment of the court below is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

3. The Defendant shall comply with the seller’s application procedure for the issuance of a certificate of sale and purchase of farmland to the seller, the Defendant, and the purchaser, with respect to the 3,091 square meters of the 84 square meters of the Masan-gun of Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts through the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

In the first place, the defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on January 12, 1980 with respect to the land of 3,091 square meters in the area of 84 m3,091 square meters in the area of Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

Preliminaryly, the judgment in paragraph 3 is the same.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

As the primary cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff purchased 3,091 square meters of 84,00,091 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the non-party Kim Young-gun, his mother representing the Defendant on January 12, 1980, who was the non-party Kim Young-gun, for the purchase of 1,90,000 square meters for the purchase of the instant land. As such, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the said purchase and sale of the instant land, the Defendant asserted that the farmland owner under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act had the obligation to obtain the certificate of farmland purchase and sale from the government office where the instant land is located. However, since the Plaintiff failed to obtain the certificate of farmland sale and sale from the government office where the instant land was located, the above sales contract

Therefore, in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1 (a copy), Gap evidence No. 2 (a sales contract), Gap evidence No. 8-1 (a certificate), Eul evidence No. 2 (a certificate), 3,4,5 (a copy of each register of the court below's witness), the defendant's mother entrusted with the authority to dispose of the land of this case by the defendant on Jan. 12, 1980, who signed a sales contract with the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant for sale of 1,90,000 won for the land of this case, and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have obtained proof of the farmland sale contract No. 9 (a certificate), and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have obtained proof of the farmland sale contract No. 9 (a certificate of seal No. 8), and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have obtained proof of the farmland sale contract no more than 1,90,000 won for the reason that the plaintiff did not have the effect of acquiring the ownership transfer registration of the farmland of this case for the purpose of the sale and sale of farmland of this case.

As seen above, the Plaintiff did not issue a certificate of farmland sale, which is in principle a joint application by the parties to the transaction, even though the Plaintiff satisfies all the requirements as a farmland purchaser for obtaining a certificate of farmland sale, and the Defendant, a seller obligated to cooperate in order to achieve the purpose of the above sale and purchase agreement, is not in violation of the purport of the certificate of farmland sale and purchase to prevent the acquisition of farmland by non-farmers. Therefore, in such a case, even if the Plaintiff did not obtain a certificate of farmland sale, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek the implementation of the registration procedure of ownership transfer based on the above sale and purchase. However, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have caused the effect of the transfer of ownership based on farmland sale without being issued a certificate of farmland sale under the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

As the conjunctive cause of this case, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for filing an application for the issuance of the certificate of purchase and sale of farmland to the plaintiff under the above sales contract. Thus, even if a sales contract was concluded without obtaining the certificate of purchase and sale of farmland under the Farmland Reform Act, the parties to the sales contract are obligated to cooperate with each other so that the contract can be completed as effective, and both parties to the sales contract are jointly obligated to apply for the certificate of the office at the seat of the party. In violation of these obligations, the other party can file a claim for the performance of the duty of cooperation against the party who does not have the effect of the contract in the procedure of application. In accordance with the attached Form 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Lease Management Act, the certificate of purchase and sale of farmland is entered as the applicant for the certificate of purchase and sale of farmland with the seller and the purchaser together, and the plaintiff was not issued the certificate of purchase and sale on the ground that the plaintiff did not jointly file an application for the issuance of the certificate of purchase and sale of farmland with the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim is accepted as it is reasonable. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair with different conclusions, it is dismissed as part of the defendant's appeal, and it is dismissed as the plaintiff's primary claim, and it is accepted as the conjunctive claim, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation

Judge Han Jong-won (Presiding Judge)