(a) Where no seller affixs his/her seal in an application form for certification of trade of farmland, whether it becomes a ground for revocation of certification of trade of farmland and the validity of certification of trade of farmland upon application of the deceased person;

(b) Whether a certificate of trade in farmland issued by the head of a Gun is valid;

A. Of the application form for the certificate of farmland sale, the seller’s seal is not a legal requirement for the certificate of farmland sale, and thus, the seller’s seal is not a reason for revocation of the certificate of farmland sale, and it does not immediately mean that the certificate of farmland sale was made as an application form in the name of the deceased.

(b)The authority of the head of Gun over the certification of purchase and sale of farmland shall be deemed to be null and void because it was delegated to the head of Eup/Myeon under Article 12 (1) of the Act on Ad Hoc Measures concerning Local Autonomy.

Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorney Kim Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 75Na336 delivered on August 21, 1975

The part of the original judgment against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Panel Division. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. The defendant's appeal costs are assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the sale of farmland was void on the ground that, although the court below acknowledged the above transaction facts between the defendant and the deceased non-party 2 as to whether there was a certificate of sale and purchase of farmland under Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act as to whether the sale and purchase of farmland between the defendant and the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1 purchased 2/3 shares of the real estate from the deceased non-party 3 and the non-party 5, which were the deceased non-party 2's property heir, the court below revoked the sale and purchase of farmland on January 8, 1974, but the above Myeon governor revoked it on March 5, 1974, but the Hasung-si was proved to have had a certificate of sale and purchase of farmland on August 12, 1974, and the cancellation of the Hasung-dong 2 as the applicant for the cancellation of the sale and purchase of farmland on the ground that there was no valid statement on the plaintiff's claim for cancellation 181.

However, the seller's seal is neither a legal requirement nor a reason for cancellation in granting a certificate of farmland sale. Since the cancellation of the certificate of farmland sale is limited to the time when there exists a reason for cancellation as prescribed by the Farmland Reform Act, the above disposition of cancellation in the Hasongppon Chapter is deemed to be invalid without a justifiable reason. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's above claim on the ground that there was no certificate of farmland sale as of January 8, 1974, and there was an error of law by misconceptioning the plaintiff about the above objection, and on the ground that there was no certificate of farmland sale, it shall not be reversed (the fact that the certificate of farmland sale was applied for in the name of the deceased, and if the property successor is in the position to obtain the certificate of farmland sale as provided by Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, and if he applies for the registration with the name of the deceased, it shall not be deemed to be null and void).

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3

It is not acceptable to accept the judgment of the original court based on the original judgment or evidence, and the cooking of the evidence that has undergone the process of its recognition is lawful and erroneous in light of the records. In the end, the author argues that the fact-finding belonging to the former part of the original judgment is insufficient.

2. Determination on the fourth ground for appeal

On August 12, 1974, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim against the sales contract for 1/3 shares of this case between the deceased non-party 1 and the defendant on the ground that there is a farmland sale certificate as stipulated in Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act of the Kimpo-Gun, the government office located in the location of the land. However, since the authority of the head of Gun on the certificate of farmland sale was delegated to the head of Eup/Myeon under Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Temporary Measures Act on Local Autonomy, (the farmland sale certificate is deemed to be included in the matters concerning the certification), the above certificate of farmland sale on the main part of the Kimpo-Gun shall be null and void, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, but the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court below shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Justices Ahn Byung-hee (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)