1. Requirements for cancellation of a contract in a bilateral contract for non-performance of obligation;

2. The purpose of Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act;

1. In a bilateral contract, one of the parties can refuse to perform his own obligation until the other party provides the other party with the performance of his obligation. Thus, when one of the parties cancels a contract on the grounds of the other party's default, the other party shall be informed of the performance of his obligation and the other party shall not be informed of the other party's default

2. The provisions of Article 19(2) and Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 19(2) of the same Act and Article 51 of the same Enforcement Rule shall be effective as long as there is sufficient proof that farmland cultivated by a farmer (or a farmer with a newly purchased farmland that does not combine with three information) who owns farmland less than three information or a person who wishes to be a farmer by self-defluence of the farmland purchased in the future, and the sale shall not be void as a matter of course, unless such proof is given prior to the sale.

Articles 533 and 541 of the former Civil Act, Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1429, Jan. 24, 1967) (Law No. 340, Jul. 24, 1984; Law No. 1429, Jul. 24, 1984)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (4288 civilians293)

This case is dismissed.

Expenses incurred in public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant before and after remand.

The defendant¡¯s attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances, and the plaintiff's attorney shall seek a judgment to register the ownership of the land of this case on September 25, 4290.

According to the evidence of both parties, this case is effective upon obtaining the plaintiff 1's authority's certificate of purchase and sale of farmland. The plaintiff 2 stated that the plaintiff 1 was modified on September 25, 4290, Gap's new evidence No. 9,10, No. 11, No. 12, and No. 15, which were contrary to the plaintiff 2, and the plaintiff 2's new evidence No. 10, No. 10, No. 2, and No. 10, No. 11, No. 2, and No. 3 were proved to be non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's new evidence

According to the plaintiff's evidence Nos. 7 and 17, the defendant's statement on October 17, 4287 that the plaintiff's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not pay for the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's counter-party 1'

The defendant or the plaintiff purchased the land of this case without the intention of the plaintiff's own works, so the sale and purchase of this case is null and void. However, since there is no dispute over the establishment of the parties concerned as to Gap's evidence 1, 2, 3, and 2-5 of the evidence Nos. 11-1, 11-2, 23, and 2-5 of the evidence No. 11-2, the authenticity of this case's land can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the argument between the parties concerned of the non-party 1's testimony, the plaintiff who does not own the farmland other than the land of this case, purchased it for the purpose of self-making, and cultivated it at present. The testimony of the non-party 12 of the party at the trial, which is contrary to the good faith recognition, cannot be done, and there is no other counter-proof evidence, etc. against the other party

In other words, the defendant can not sell and purchase farmland without proof under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. The defendant's assertion that this sale and purchase is null and void since it was established without such proof. However, the above provision is invalid, since it is sufficient proof that the farmland cultivated by the farmer, who has self-finite or repaid farmland, has less than three farmland (or a farmer who has new purchased farmland and has farmland less than three information) or a person who wishes to become a farmer by self-finiteing the farmland purchased in the future, and the sale and purchase shall be valid, and unless such proof is proved prior to the sale, such sale and purchase shall not be null and void as a matter of course. Thus,

Thus, the defendant is obligated to register the transfer of ownership of the original land through the sale on October 17, 4287 at the same time with 336,290 refund from the plaintiff (the plaintiff asserts that the sale of this case is subject to the suspension condition of the agency's certificate of sale of farmland, but there is no reason to do so).

For the above reasons, since the plaintiff's main claim is reasonable, the original judgment that cited it is just and the indictment on this case is groundless. Therefore, it is decided in accordance with Articles 384, 89, and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Kim Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)