(b) Where both parties express their intent not to file an application for permission under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, whether a contract in the state of flexible invalidation becomes null and void finally;

B. A contract on the state of flexible invalidation without permission for transaction under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory shall be deemed null and void on a conclusive basis, in cases where both parties clearly express their intent not to file an application for permission, as well as when there is a non-permission disposition by the competent Do governor.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

On the first ground for appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that each of the instant sales contracts for each of the instant land located within the regulatory zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory was null and void without the permission of the competent Do Governor, and that each of the instant down payment received by the Defendants pursuant to each of the instant sales contracts null and void is profits obtained without any legal ground,

2. However, a contract concluded before obtaining the permission from the competent Do Governor for the land within the regulatory zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is null and void in terms of the terms of the contract which excludes or avoids the above permission from the beginning, but it is not likely to be effective in terms of the terms of the contract which is premised on obtaining the permission (a contract which is not a contract which excludes or excludes the permission, it shall be deemed to fall under this case). Although the above conclusive invalidation is not different from the case of the above conclusive invalidation that the contract on the transfer of ownership and other rights does not take effect at all until obtaining the permission, if the permission is granted, the contract becomes null and void retroactively, and the contract becomes null and void, and the party who entered into such flexible invalidation has a duty to cooperate with one another to ensure that the contract becomes effective, and thus, the party who entered into the contract at the same time has no duty to seek the return of the contract at will, as seen above, shall not be deemed null and void in terms of the circumstances where the purchaser voluntarily concluded the contract and made the return of the contract.

3. 기록에 의하면, 규제구역 내에 있는 이 사건 각 토지에 대한 원고와 피고들 사이의 이 사건 각 매매계약은 관할 도지사의 허가를 배제하거나 허가를 잠탈할 것을 내용으로 하는 것으로는 보이지 않는바, 따라서 위 각 매매걔약은 유동적 무효상태의 계약이라고 할 것인데도 불구하고, 원심이 이와 달리 위 각 매매계약이 관할 도지사의 허가 없이 체결된 것이라는 이유만으로 확정적으로 무효라고 보았음에는 국토이용법상의 규제구역 내의 토지에 대한 거래의 허가에 관한 법리를 오해한 위법이 있다고 할 것이다.

4. However, such a contract in the state of flexible invalidation shall be deemed as null and void in a conclusive case where both parties express their intent not to file an application for permission, as well as when there is a non-permission disposition by the competent Do governor.

Meanwhile, according to the testimony of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 at the court of first instance, although the plaintiff requested the defendants who are the seller to file an application for permission through the referral, the defendants failed to place the application for permission and failed to do so itself, and they are subject to criminal punishment. Thus, it can be seen that the plaintiff who is the seller would cancel the sales contract and confiscate the down payment if he did not pay the balance within the payment due date. Thus, the defendants who are the buyers clearly expressed their intent not to file an application for permission against each of the above sales contract, and the plaintiff who is the buyer clearly expressed his intent not to file an application by demanding the defendants to return the down payment paid to the defendants in the lawsuit of this case without seeking the performance of the duty of cooperation against the defendants. Thus, the flexible invalidation of each of the above sales contract became null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiff can seek the return of each contract deposit already paid to the defendants in unjust enrichment, and the court below erred that each contract of this case was deemed null and void on a conclusive basis at the time of the conclusion of the contract, but the plaintiff can seek the return of each contract deposit against the defendants, and the above illegality of the court below is just and it cannot be seen as affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

The court below rejected the defendants' assertion that each of the instant sales contracts between the plaintiff and the defendants was null and void without the permission of the competent Do Governor under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (as seen earlier, the judgment was erroneous) and that each of the above sales contracts is valid within the extent that it is effective as a contract contract through the procedure for permission. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be viewed as a deviation of judgment like the theory of lawsuit, and even a deviation of judgment of a novel, it cannot be seen as

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)