Where a seller is a co-owner of farmland, he/she applies for the certification of trade in his/her sole name or the certificate of trade in farmland with a seal affixed by the seller.

Since the certificate of sale and purchase of farmland in the location office is aimed at securing that the sale and purchase should be made in conformity with the intention of the Farmland Reform Act without any violation, the seller may not revoke such certificate on the ground that the seller is a holder of a right of share or the seller’s seal is omitted in the application for the certificate.

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da1911 Delivered on March 9, 1976

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 77Na498 delivered on April 20, 1978

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the purpose of Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act is to ensure that the farmland concerned is farmland that can be directly sold by the parties concerned and that the transaction concerned is consistent with the intention of the Farmland Reform Act, which intends to appropriately distribute the farmland to farmers, without any violation of the above intent, such proof is sufficient because it is consistent with the above purport, and the seller is a right holder or the seller's seal is omitted in the application form for certification, and it cannot be viewed as unlawful, and such proof cannot be viewed as unlawful. The evidence No. 2 sent to the head of the Dong-gu District Court, the office located in this case, and the statement No. 2 was sent to the head of the Dong-gu District Court, the office located in this case. The certificate of farmland purchase and sale issued by the head of the Dong-gu, the office located in this case was owned by the defendant 1, and the defendant 2 was solely sold, and the seller's signature and seal was omitted, and thus, the court below's judgment which cited the above evidence No. 2 as to the above portion of the defendant 1's shares cannot be proved. 2.

Therefore, since the appeal of this case is well-grounded, in accordance with Articles 400 and 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)