The case holding that the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland is unnecessary in case where the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland was rejected on the ground that the land category of the land was used for another purpose, even for a considerable period of time, and the farmland was not farmland, and the permission for farmland conversion was granted according to the present status after the successful

Although the land category on the public cadastral book is the answer, since approximately 1 to 2 of the Act on the Registration of Land, which is larger than that on the neighboring land than that on the successful bid, or was used as a storage for construction materials for a considerable period of time due to the construction materials being used for other purposes, such as the installation of container boxes and storages, etc. on the land before the successful bid is determined, the application itself is returned on the ground that the relevant government agency cannot be deemed farmland even though the successful bidder applied for the issuance of the qualification certificate prior to the decision on the successful bid price, or that the permission for farmland conversion is granted in accordance with the legal procedure immediately after the successful bid is awarded by the successful bidder, and thus there is no need to obtain the qualification certificate for farmland acquisition under Article 8 of the Farmland Act when the successful bidder is awarded the highest bidder in the discretionary auction procedure.

Article 2 subparag. 1 and Article 8 of the Farmland Act, Article 633 subparag. 2 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 86Ma1095 decided Jan. 15, 1987 (Gong1987, 617)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 97Na1708 delivered on August 21, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

After recognizing the facts, the court below acknowledged that the land of this case is categorized as farmland stipulated in Article 2 of the Farmland Act. However, although the land of this case is classified as land category on the public land register, it cannot be deemed that the land of this case is farmland stipulated in Article 2 of the Farmland Act at the time of the decision of successful bid approval, it cannot be deemed that the land of this case is farmland stipulated in Article 2 of the Farmland Act because the land of this case is filled by approximately 1 to 2, or the land of this case, which was used as building material storage for another purpose, such as the construction of container and warehouse, and it has already been used as farmland for a considerable period, and the function of farmland has been completely lost. The defendant's application for the issuance of the qualification certificate prior to the decision of successful bid approval cannot be viewed as farmland of this case, even if the defendant applied for the issuance of the qualification certificate prior to the decision of successful bid approval of this case, it cannot be seen as farmland of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to farmland of Article 8 of the Farmland Act or the ground for appeal.

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

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)