Whether a person who resides in a foreign country at the time of farmland purchase is qualified;

In order to obtain the eligibility to purchase farmland under the Farmland Reform Act, it is sufficient to be a person who intends to be a farmer at the time of sale, so it cannot be said that the mere fact that he resides in a foreign country at the time of purchase is deprived of the eligibility to purchase farmland.

Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and six others

Gwangju District Court's Netcheon Branch (83Gahap6)

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. Defendant 2 shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed on December 8, 1980 with respect to the real estate listed in subparagraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1821, which was completed on December 8, 1980, and Defendant 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 shall conduct the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration, and the transfer registration completed on November 26, 1980 with respect to the portion of each entry in the attached list No. 17806 among the real estate listed in subparagraph (2) of the attached Table No. 1780, and the transfer registration completed on November 26, 1980 with respect to the portion of each entry in the attached list No. 17801, Nov. 26, 1980; the transfer registration completed on November 26, 1980 with respect to each entry in the attached list No. 17803, Nov. 26, 1986).

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances.

4. A provisional execution may be effected only for the portion ordering the delivery under paragraph (2) above.

The same shall apply to the order.

After the registration of ownership transfer has been made in the name of the non-party as to the above (1) and (2) on the real estate stated in (3) above (3) on November 26, 1980, the Gwangju District Court No. 17806 of the receipt on November 26, 1980, and No. 17801 of the receipt on November 26, 1980 as to the real estate stated in (4) above (5) above (5) on November 26, 1980, the court below's decision that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the non-party No. 17805 on November 26, 1980 on the real estate stated in (6) above (3) cannot be accepted by the non-party No. 17805, which had no dispute over the above (6) on the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate purchased by the non-party No. 17807 on November 26, 1980.

However, the defendants' legal representative asserted that the non-party purchased the above real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff as a collateral for the loan from the plaintiff who was a form of the above real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party as above. Thus, since the plaintiff did not lend the business funds, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the above defendants is valid registration consistent with the substantive relation. Thus, the non-party's assertion that the non-party purchased the above real estate and trusted the above real estate to the plaintiff, and each testimony portion of Gap's testimony, including evidence 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the court below's witness Kim Dong-dong, Simdong-dong, Simdong-dong, Kim Jong-dong, and Kim Jae-dong, are hard to believe and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the plaintiff's above evidence Nos. 16-1, 5-1, 6-1, 7-1, 7-1, 8-1, 1, 10 evidence No.

The defendants' legal representative also asserted that the plaintiff could not acquire the above real estate since they were naturalization in Japan after the time limit. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's naturalization in Japan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

In addition, the defendants' attorney argues that the plaintiff is residing in Japan that farmland among this real estate cannot be acquired because it is not sufficient to do so. However, in order to obtain the qualification of a person eligible to purchase farmland under the Farmland Reform Act, it is sufficient to be the person who intends to be a farmer at the time of the sale and merely resides in Japan at the time of the purchase, and it cannot be deemed that the above assertion is deprived of the qualification to purchase farmland. Thus, the above assertion is

Thus, Defendant 2 is obligated to register cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of the above defendant, Defendant 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, according to the ratio of inheritance shares as stated in the separate sheet, and to register cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party, and Defendant 1, 2, and 3 are obligated to deliver the above possession real estate to the plaintiff unless the plaintiff proves otherwise legitimate source of possession right. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for principal lawsuit is reasonable. Since the original judgment is unfair in conclusion, the original judgment is revoked and the costs of lawsuit are borne by the losing party, and the issuance of the order under paragraph (2) shall be attached to the provisional execution. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul's disease