토지거래허가신청절차
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The main claim against the counterclaim Defendant is all dismissed.
3...
1. On March 23, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased each of the real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) located in the land transaction permission zone as stipulated in the attached list from the counter Defendant on March 23, 2005 (amended by Act No. 7459, Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter “the Act”) at KRW 370,000,000 from the purchase price (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); around March 23, 2005, KRW 350,000 out of the above purchase price; and around June 30, 2005, the remainder of KRW 20,000,000 from the purchase price to the counter Defendant respectively.
(In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 4, 5, 9, evidence 7-1, 2, and Eul evidence 8-1, 8-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.)
2. Judgment on the main claim of the Counterclaim Plaintiff
A. According to the above facts established in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the sales contract of this case, which was located within the land transaction permission zone, is in the state of dynamic invalidation.
As such, the counterclaim Defendant is obligated to implement each of the procedures for application for land transaction permission according to the instant sales contract with respect to each of the instant real estate in the absence of special circumstances against the counterclaim.
B. (1) As to the assertion of the counterclaim Defendant, the counterclaim Defendant asserted that the instant sales contract was concluded without obtaining land transaction permission for each of the instant real estate by stealing the name of the counterclaim, as the Plaintiff did not meet the land transaction permission standards stipulated by the law at the time of entering into the instant sales contract. Ultimately, the instant sales contract became null and void.
On this issue, the Lessee entered into the instant sales contract.