Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Inherited farmland up to 10,000 square metres and the disposition obligation
Supreme Court, Feb. 14, 2019, 2017Du65357 (judgment)
Case name: 농지처분의무통지취소[상속농지처분의무 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
How is it decided whether a plot is 'farmland' under Article 2(1)(i)(a) first sentence of the Farmland Act, does land that was farmland but was converted without a permit remain farmland while it is used for another purpose, and must an owner who inherited farmland of 10,000 square metres or less dispose of it under Article 10(1)(i) when the owner does not use it for the owner's own farming business without a just reason prescribed by Presidential Decree?
Holding
Whether a plot is farmland does not depend on the registered land category; it is judged from the actual state of the land. Land that was farmland remains farmland even while it is used for another purpose, where it was converted without a farmland-conversion permit and must be restored to farmland, so that the changed state is only temporary. On the second point, inherited farmland of 10,000 square metres or less falls outside Article 10(1)(i), so no disposition obligation arises even where the owner does not use it for the owner's farming business without a just reason prescribed by Presidential Decree.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
상속으로 취득한 1만㎡ 이하의 농지에 대해서는 농지법 제10조 제1항 제1호가 적용되지 않으므로 대통령령으로 정하는 정당한 사유 없이 자기의 농업경영에 이용하지 아니하더라도 처분의무가 있다고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
With respect to agricultural land of 10,000㎡ or less acquired by inheritance, Article 10, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the Agricultural Land Act does not apply; therefore, even if such land is not used for one's own agricultural management without justifiable reason as prescribed by Presidential Decree, an obligation to dispose of cannot be regarded as arising.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
농지법 제6조 제1항, 제2항 제4호, 제7조 제1항, 제10조 제1항 제1호, 제6호의 문언, 체계, 연혁, 입법 취지 등을 종합하면
Unofficial English translation
taking into account the wording, system, legislative history, and legislative purpose of Article 6, paragraph (1), Article 6, paragraph (2), subparagraph 4, Article 7, paragraph (1), and Article 10, paragraph (1), subparagraphs 1 and 6 of the Agricultural Land Act,
Factors
- 공부상의 지목과 관계없이 그 토지의 사실상 현상에 따라 판단하여야 하지만
- 불법 전용된 것이어서 농지로 원상회복되어야 하는 것이라면
- 그 변경 상태는 일시적인 것에 불과하고 여전히 농지법상 ‘농지’에 해당한다
- 상속으로 취득한 1만㎡ 이하의 농지에 대해서는 농지법 제10조 제1항 제1호가 적용되지 않으므로
Unofficial English translation
• the determination must be made based on the actual condition of the land irrespective of the registered land category,
• if the land has been unlawfully converted and therefore must be restored to its original state as agricultural land,
• the altered state is merely temporary and the land still falls within 'agricultural land' under the Agricultural Land Act,
• since Article 10, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the Agricultural Land Act does not apply to agricultural land of 10,000㎡ or less acquired by inheritance,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2018두43095 판결(공2018하, 2264)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Du43095 decided October 25, 2018 (Gong 2018 Ha, 2264)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2018두43095 판결(공2018하, 2264)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How long must lawfully held farmland remain in another use before it stops being farmland, once the changed state can no longer be called temporary?
The retrial judgment of the Busan High Court on the disposition obligation notice would show how the exemption for inherited farmland up to 10,000 square metres is applied to a notice already issued. Any amendment to Articles 6, 7 or 10 of the Farmland Act, or a later decision departing from Supreme Court Decision 2018Du43095, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary reads the Court as weighing the circumstances together, while the independent reads it as setting requirements, because the farmland test turns on actual state and the surrounding facts, which can be read either way.
상속으로 취득한 1만㎡ 이하의 농지에 대해서는 농지법 제10조 제1항 제1호가 적용되지 않으므로Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How long must lawfully held farmland remain in another use before it stops being farmland, once the changed state can no longer be called temporary?” vs Independent “How does the disposal obligation apply when the total area of inherited farmland exceeds 10,000 square meters?”
The primary asks how long lawfully held farmland may remain in another use before it stops being farmland, while the independent asks how the disposal duty applies when inherited farmland exceeds 10,000 square metres in total.
상속으로 취득한 1만㎡ 이하의 농지에 대해서는 농지법 제10조 제1항 제1호가 적용되지 않으므로 대통령령으로 정하는 정당한 사유 없이 자기의 농업경영에 이용하지 아니하더라도 처분의무가 있다고 볼 수 없다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Busan High Court, in its judgment of 11 October 2017 (2017Nu22565), held that the disputed land had been converted without a lawful procedure and must be restored in the future, so it was still farmland within the meaning of the Farmland Act. On the ownership restriction it read Article 10(1)(i) as applying to inherited farmland of 10,000 square metres or less unless the owner leased or lent it under Article 23(1), and so held the disposition obligation notice lawful.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the first holding: the court below had applied the settled rule that a plot unlawfully converted and awaiting restoration stays farmland, and had not misread the law on farmland. On the second holding it held the opposite. Reading the words, scheme, history and legislative purpose of Articles 6(1), 6(2)(iv), 7(1) and 10(1)(i) and (vi) together, it held that Article 10(1)(i) does not reach inherited farmland up to 10,000 square metres, so the court below had misread the law on the disposition obligation in a way that affected the result, and reversed the whole judgment for retrial.
Distinguishing conditions
- Inherited farmland that exceeds the 10,000 square metre ownership cap in Article 7(1), where Article 10(1)(vi) on excess land comes into play.
- Farmland whose change of use was made under a farmland-conversion permit, so that no restoration to farmland is required and the changed state is not temporary.
- Farmland that was not acquired by inheritance, so that Article 6(2)(iv) does not give the owner the right to hold it without farming it.
Record verification notes
Establish first whether the land's actual state makes it farmland, and whether its change of use was unlawful and still awaits restoration, since the Court treated only that changed state as temporary. Then fix the mode of acquisition and the area: the exemption the Court announced is for land inherited and held at 10,000 square metres or less, and check which paragraph of Article 10(1) the disposition notice relies on, item (i) or item (vi).
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 어떤 토지가 농지법 제2조 제1호 (가)목 전단에서 정한 ‘농지’인지 판단하는 기준 및 농지법상 ‘농지’였던 토지가 농지전용허가 등을 받지 아니하고 불법 전용되어 현실적으로 다른 용도로 이용되고 있는 경우, 농지법상 ‘농지’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [2] 상속으로 취득한 1만㎡ 이하의 농지를 정당한 사유 없이 자기의 농업경영에 이용하지 아니하는 경우, 처분의무가 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The standard for determining whether certain land constitutes 'agricultural land' as defined in the first part of Article 2, subparagraph 1, item (a) of the Agricultural Land Act, and whether land that was 'agricultural land' under the Agricultural Land Act but has been unlawfully converted without obtaining agricultural land conversion permission or the like and is in fact being used for a different purpose, falls within 'agricultural land' under the Agricultural Land Act (affirmative) [2] Whether an obligation to dispose of arises where a person who has acquired agricultural land of 10,000㎡ or less by inheritance fails to use it for his or her own agricultural management without justifiable reason (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 어떤 토지가 농지법 제2조 제1호 (가)목 전단에서 정한 ‘농지’인지는 공부상의 지목과 관계없이 그 토지의 사실상 현상에 따라 판단하여야 하지만, 농지법상 ‘농지’였던 토지가 현실적으로 다른 용도로 이용되고 있더라도 그 토지가 농지전용허가 등을 받지 아니하고 불법 전용된 것이어서 농지로 원상회복되어야 하는 것이라면 그 변경 상태는 일시적인 것에 불과하고 여전히 농지법상 ‘농지’에 해당한다. [2] 농지법 제6조 제1항, 제2항 제4호, 제7조 제1항, 제10조 제1항 제1호, 제6호의 문언, 체계, 연혁, 입법 취지 등을 종합하면, 상속으로 취득한 1만㎡ 이하의 농지에 대해서는 농지법 제10조 제1항 제1호가 적용되지 않으므로 대통령령으로 정하는 정당한 사유 없이 자기의 농업경영에 이용하지 아니하더라도 처분의무가 있다고 볼 수 없다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 농지법 제2조 제1호 (가)목, 제42조 [2] 농지법 제6조 제1항, 제2항 제4호, 제7조 제1항, 제10조 제1항 제1호, 제6호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger