(a) Whether an application for registration of ownership transfer may be filed without certification of farmland trade where the agency at the location was not certified at the time of the purchase and sale of farmland but is publicly notified as a natural green belt under the Urban Planning Act excluded from the application of the Farmland Reform Act

(b) Whether a certificate of sale of farmland is required even in the case where the Urban Planning Act is amended after the right to claim for registration of transfer of ownership becomes effective, and the farmland which is not required for the Urban Planning Act is re-amended;

C. Where facts are otherwise acknowledged after remand, the binding force of the judgment remanded shall be the scope of the judgment.

A. Even if the government office’s certification at the time of the purchase and sale of farmland was not obtained, if the farmland was later publicly notified as a natural green belt under the Urban Planning Act, and the application of the Farmland Reform Act, which was enforced at the time, was excluded pursuant to Article 87(1)3 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191), the defect in the certification of the government office at the location is cured, and the farmland buyer can exercise his right to claim ownership transfer registration without proof of the government office at the location.

B. As long as the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer concerning farmland takes effect once again, the relevant provisions of the Urban Planning Act are amended, and the farmland falls under the "farmland not necessary for the urban planning project" as farmland within the green belt area under the same Act, and even if it seems that the external form and the transfer of ownership seems to require the proof of the agency where the farmland was located under the provisions of the same Act, it cannot be said that the proof of the agency where the farmland was located is again needed in exercising the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer

C. Since the court below acknowledged facts that form the basis of binding judgment by conducting a new examination of evidence after remand, it is possible to determine new laws based thereon, and this does not affect the binding force of the judgment of remand.

Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act, Article 87(1)3 of the former Urban Planning Act, Article 87(1)3 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 406(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 94Da24091 delivered on Sep. 9, 1994 (dong) 63Da900 delivered on Apr. 28, 1964 (No. 12~57) 80Da2518 delivered on Feb. 24, 1981 (Gong1981, 13741) 2. Supreme Court Decision 79Da1291 delivered on Oct. 10, 1979 (Gong1979, 12301) 92Da54135, 54142 delivered on Oct. 26, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 3159) Da. 91Da2113 delivered on Apr. 12, 1991 (Gong191, 193; 198Da29499 delivered on Apr. 29, 196)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Jeonju District Court Decision 92Na1981 delivered on March 18, 1994

Supreme Court Decision 91Da33872 delivered on May 12, 1992

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the court below's legal determination, it is clear that the above farmland was designated and announced as a natural green belt under the Urban Planning Act on October 28, 1991 while the plaintiff had not received the registration of transfer of ownership, as the farmland in this case was entered into between the defendants on May 23, 198, and the plaintiff was designated and announced as a natural green belt under the Urban Planning Act. Thus, at the time of the sale of farmland in this case, there was a need for proof of the office where the location of the farmland was located in the claim for the registration of transfer of ownership in accordance with Article 19 of the Farmland Reform Act, but it was designated and announced as a natural green belt under the Urban Planning Act, along with the designation and public notification of the farmland in this case as well as Article 87 (1) 3 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 4427 of Dec. 14, 191) which had been enforced at that time. Therefore,

Therefore, even if the farmland in this case was not certified by the agency where the farmland in this case was located at the time of the sale, the defect in the proof of the agency where the farmland in this case was located is cured by being notified as a natural green belt under the Urban Planning Act, and the plaintiff is able to effectively exercise the right to claim the transfer of ownership even without proof of the agency where the farmland in this case was located (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da2518, Feb. 24, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 63Da900, Apr. 28, 1964). As such, once the plaintiff's right to claim the transfer of ownership concerning the farmland in this case becomes effective, the corresponding provision in the Urban Planning Act is revised again, and the farmland in this case becomes unnecessary as farmland in green belt area under the Urban Planning Act. Accordingly, even if it appears that it was necessary to exercise the right to claim the transfer of ownership in the outer form under the above provision in this Act, it cannot be said that the new legal effect becomes effective after the enactment of 97.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to this purport does not follow the purport of the judgment of the Supreme Court on the case where the government office’s proof of the farmland sale in this case is necessary, but the judgment of the court below did not render a legal judgment on the premise that the farmland in this case was publicly notified as a natural green belt in urban planning as above, so long as the court below acknowledged the facts which form the basis of the binding judgment by conducting a new examination of evidence, it shall be possible to make a new judgment and it shall not affect the binding force of the judgment of the remand (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1072, Dec. 14, 1982). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below on this issue is just and it is without merit.

2. The decision of the court below that the contract of sale and purchase of land within the regulation area under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is not necessary to obtain permission from the competent authority in relation to the contract of sale and purchase is just in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remand, and there is no violation of the law of equity and fairness in the application and enforcement of the law as pointed out in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal to criticize this cannot be accepted.

3. According to the court below's duly confirmed, the plaintiff paid part of the intermediate payment other than the down payment after the contract of this case. As such, since the plaintiff had already commenced his performance as a buyer, the plaintiff cannot rescind the contract of this case on the ground that the defendants returned the down payment and the intermediate payment that he received thereafter, and there is no other circumstance to deem that the defendants acquired the right of rescission as to the farmland transaction contract of this case. Therefore, the grounds of appeal based on the premise that the farmland transaction contract of this case was rescinded cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, all of the appeals of this case are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)