[소유권이전등기말소][집15(3)민,204]
Before the purchaser of the property devolving upon the State fully pays the purchase price and acquires the ownership, the validity of the sales contract until it is delivered to the third party.
If the purchaser of the property devolving upon the State sells it to a third party under the condition of suspending the acquisition of the ownership of the property devolving upon the State before the purchase price is paid in full, it shall not be null and void even if there is
Article 22 of the Act on Property Disposal for Reversion
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and one other
Gwangju District Court Decision 67Na45 delivered on July 18, 1967
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
(1) From the second point for convenience, the lower court: (a) donated the instant land to Defendant 1; (b) provided, however, that the registration thereof was made through the process of ownership transfer registration; (c) examining the process of documentary evidence duly conducted on the premise of the lower court’s finding of facts as above in light of the record, it cannot be said that there is an unlawful ground for documentary evidence, as otherwise pointed out in the arguments; (d) since the testimony content of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 is unrelated to the aforementioned facts recognized, even though the lower court failed to make a decision on this testimony, it does not affect the lower court’s judgment; and (e) there is no evidence to have pride that the gift act among the Defendants is a conspiracy, false indication, or a juristic act to mislead the Plaintiff.
(2) Next, we examine the second ground for appeal.
In its decision, the court below held that if the purchaser of the property devolving upon the purchaser completely pays the purchase price and sells it to a third party before acquiring the ownership, this sale is null and void because it violated the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging. However, if the purchaser of the property devolving upon the purchaser sells it to a third party before completely paying the purchase price, it cannot be viewed as null and void even if the purchaser completely pays the purchase price and sells it to a third party, even if there is no actual delivery of the property before the purchase price, the sale contract cannot be deemed null and void. Therefore, the decision of the court below to the contrary is unlawful. However, as seen in the above Paragraph (1) above, the land already purchased from the third party and passed the ownership transfer registration, and even if the Plaintiff purchased the land from the third party of the defendant 2, the ownership transfer registration between the Defendants is cancelled, or if there were no special circumstances that the purchaser transferred to the defendant 2, the original owner, the plaintiff's obligation to purchase the land from the defendant 2, who was the plaintiff 297.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on the grounds that it is groundless, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.
This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.
The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)