[매매대금반환][공1997.11.1.(45),3225]
Where a sales contract becomes null and void, the legal nature and scope of the obligation to return the purchase price.
Article 748 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the seller’s obligation to return the purchase price at the time the contract becomes null and void in its nature and the scope of return shall be subject to Article 748 of the Civil Act, and Article 548(2) of the Civil Act, which is a special provision, shall not be applicable mutatis mutandis or applicable mutatis mutandis (in a case where a sale contract becomes null and void due to a failure to obtain a land transaction permit, the case rejecting the buyer’s assertion that the seller shall pay the sale price plus interest from the date of receiving the purchase price
Article 748 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff (Attorney Kim In-ven, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant (Attorney Lee dilution, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 96Na13875 delivered on November 12, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the contract of this case was based on evidence, and found that it was a "land transaction contract" under Article 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and its effect takes effect only after obtaining permission from the competent authority under the same Act, and it does not take effect before obtaining permission. However, if the contract of this case prior to obtaining permission is a contract which excludes or excludes permission from the beginning and is not effective, it shall be deemed that the contract is a contract which is based on the premise that permission should be granted (not a contract which excludes or excludes permission, but a contract which is not a contract which is not a contract of this case's contents.). Thus, if the transfer or establishment of rights such as ownership does not take effect at all until obtaining permission, the contract of this case becomes effective retroactively, and the above contract becomes null and void, and thus, the above contract shall be returned to the plaintiff as an unjust enrichment within the scope of KRW 150,000,00,00.
Therefore, the appeal is 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.
Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)