logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1965. 9. 30. 선고 65다811 전원합의체 판결
[토지인도][집13(2)민,174]
Main Issues

The effect of a case where a person who acquired ownership of farmland not acquired by the Government at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act resells the farmland to another person without paying for the farmland.

Summary of Judgment

In order to sell farmland not sold to the government at the time this Act enters into force, the seller does not necessarily require the cultivation of farmland by himself.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 19(2) and 5 and 6 of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Egyptian

Defendant-Appellee

Jung-dong et al.

Judgment of the lower court

Gwangju District Court Decision 64Na472 delivered on March 31, 1965

Text

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

Reasons

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff was that the non-party Kim Jong-sik was legally cut at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, but Kim Jong-sung did not deliver the above farmland to the non-party Y-sik, and was cultivated by the defendants. However, according to Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act, the seller of the farmland not distributed to the plaintiff pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act must self-definite to sell and purchase the farmland, and obtain certification of self-definite farmland from the government office at the time of the purchase of the farmland. However, at the time of the plaintiff's purchase of the farmland, it is evident that the government office, which was the seller's own farmland, did not own the farmland at the time of the purchase of the farmland and there was no proof of the transfer of ownership with the plaintiff's name, which is the self-definite farmland transfer registration, all of the farmland sale and purchase regulations in the plaintiff's future were invalid, but it did not violate the Farmland Reform Act.

Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act provides that "The farmland not distributed under this Act and the farmland of which repayment has been completed can be directly sold and purchased by the parties after obtaining a certification from the office in which the location of the farmland is located." The term "farmland not distributed under this Act" means the farmland not acquired by the Government for the purpose of farmland distribution in accordance with Article 5 and Article 6 of the same Act, and the term "self-production" means the farmland that has not been acquired by the Government in accordance with Article 51 (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act as one example of the farmland that has not been acquired by the Government in accordance with Article 6 of the Farmland Reform Act, and it is clear that Article 5 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Reform Act does not necessarily require that the person who acquired the ownership of the farmland not acquired by the Government for the purpose of farmland distribution

Therefore, in the sale of farmland in this case, if the purchaser is the farmland not acquired by the Government at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and the fact that the farmland is less than 3 information at the same time (including the acquisition of farmland for the purpose of self-sustaining) is recognized as the proof by the government office where the farmland is less than 3 information, the sale of the farmland and the transfer of ownership shall be valid, and for the same reason, the judgment of the court below that the sale of the farmland between the plaintiff and the non-party 2 shall be null and void for the same reason shall be interpreted as a mistake of the law under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act and Article 51 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and thus, it shall go back to the fact that the original judgment cannot be reversed and that there is a contradiction in the reason for the

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of Hansung-do (Presiding Judge) and Kim Dong-dong and Kimchi-bak, so-called Hong-kak, the maximum lusium lusium lusium lusium lusium lab

arrow