B. Whether a foreigner may deny the validity of the contract and refuse the performance of the obligation of ownership transfer registration on the grounds that the foreigner did not make a prior report under Article 5(2) of the Foreigner’s Land Acquisition Act (negative)

B. The effect of the contract itself shall not be denied in the case of the acquisition of rights for which the prior report is not made under Article 5(2) of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act, unless the prior report is obtained from the Minister of Home Affairs and Affairs under paragraph (1) of the same Article. The foreigner who acquired the right to land is sufficient to have the certificate of completion of report under Article 5(2) of the same Act and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in the registration of the transfer of ownership, and the other party cannot refuse to perform the obligation of transfer of ownership on the ground that there is no prior report.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the real estate in this case, which is a part of the building of the apartment house and its site ownership, was purchased at the recommendation of Nonparty 2, Japan, and was entrusted to Defendant 1, the above non-party 2, who was the wife of the above non-party 1, and the ownership transfer registration of the real estate in this case was completed on August 18, 198, on behalf of the above non-party 1, the plaintiff purchased the real estate in this case from the above non-party 1, on behalf of the above non-party 1, the above non-party 1 would have terminated the title trust registration of the real estate in this case, and the above non-party 2 would have removed the certificate of personal seal impression for the establishment of the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2, who was aware that the above non-party 1 was subject to the above non-party 1's notification of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage in this case's name and the above non-party 2's signature and the above documents were issued to the above non-party 2.

The issue is groundless.

2. Where a foreigner acquires a land and holds a title trust to another person, the cancellation of the title trust and the restoration of the title of ownership to the person in question is practically the acquisition of ownership, which includes the procedure of permission, report, etc. under the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act, and the subject of permission and report under Article 5 (1) and (2) of the same Act includes not only the ownership of the land, but also all the cases of acquisition of rights to the land except mortgage. Thus, even if a foreigner acquires a right to the aggregate building to which the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings applies together with the part of the building, it is necessary to obtain permission or report under the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act in the registration of transfer of ownership as to the right to the site. Therefore, the part that the court below held that the right to the site of an aggregate building

However, according to Article 5 (2) of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition of a right to land of not more than 660§³ for the use of one household's own residence shall be made only in an area as determined by the Presidential Decree. The acquisition of a right to land of not more than 660§³ for the use of one household's own residence shall not be denied, unlike the case where the prior report is not obtained from the Minister of Home Affairs under paragraph (2) of the above Article, unlike the case where the prior report is not made by the Minister of Home Affairs, and the owner of a right to land is sufficient to have a certificate of completion of report under Article 5 (2) of the same Act and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in the registration of the transfer of ownership, and the other party shall not be allowed to refuse the performance of the obligation to register the transfer of ownership on the ground that the above prior report was not made. In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to land under Article 5 (2) of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act.

The issue eventually goes back to the absence of reason.

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)