The validity of the purchase and sale of farmland owners subject to purchase under the Farmland Reform Act;

Since this Act prohibits the sale and purchase of non-self-owned farmland after the date of promulgation of this Act, and this Act is a strong law that cannot avoid this contract by the parties, such sale and purchase of farmland can not be deemed valid as the sale and purchase of another person's right, and it belongs to an extremely different example that the purchased farmland is converted into a site before its distribution. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the parties have concluded a sale and purchase contract under the conditions of suspension that

Article 27 of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 69Na77 delivered on November 29, 1969

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff-Appellant

The defendant's legal representative asserted that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 (the same person as the non-party 3) purchased the real estate from the plaintiff's representative 4 on April 30, 1968 as stated in the second trial of the court of first instance (e.g., May 13, 1968), and that on October 23, 1969 stated in the second trial of the court below, the above assertion was erroneous in the payment brief of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 corrected that the above non-party 1 purchased the real estate directly from the plaintiff himself through the introduction of the above non-party 4. However, the plaintiff's legal representative asserted that the non-party 4 sold the real estate to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, or the plaintiff's first assertion was not invoked, and therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the confession of the defendant's first assertion.

Then, according to the records, the first appraisal of the appraiser non-party 5 is the same as that of the plaintiff's title affixed with the evidence No. 2 and No. 4-2, and the second appraisal of the plaintiff's title affixed with the evidence No. 4-2 and No. 5-2, and the second appraisal of the plaintiff's title affixed with the evidence No. 5-2 are the same as that of the plaintiff's title affixed with the evidence No. 5-2 and the second appraisal of the plaintiff's title affixed with the evidence No. 5-2, which are different from the object of the first appraisal, so the first appraisal and the second appraisal are inconsistent with the object of the second appraisal. Thus, the first appraisal and the second appraisal are not inconsistent with the records. Thus, the sales contract of the plaintiff, non-party 1 and non-party 3 with the original judgment can be recognized. Thus, the court below's arguments are without merit, such as the evidence preparation of the original judgment and the theory of fact finding.

The second ground of appeal No. 2

The original judgment is without merit because the sale and purchase of the land by the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 was no longer a sale and purchase of another person’s right after the Plaintiff’s forfeiture of ownership. Thus, it cannot be deemed null and void as a tugboat. Although the Farmland Reform Act prohibits sale and purchase of farmland for which its purport is not clear after its promulgation, it does not purport to prohibit sale and sale of farmland as it does not constitute an act undermining the distribution of farmland. Thus, the non-party 3 testified that the purchase and sale of the land was promised to prevent the sale and purchase of the land under the condition of suspension, as alleged by the Defendant, regardless of its distribution at the time of its purchase and sale, and it is reasonable to view that the non-party 1 had no legal effect on the land before the purchase and sale of the land by the Plaintiff and the non-party 1, who was merely a road subsequent to the conclusion of the lower judgment, and thus, it cannot be seen that the Plaintiff had no legal effect on the land under this case’s law since it was no more than 7 years after its purchase and sale and sale of the land.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu