(b) The case holding that it cannot be said that the court has a duty to question whether the plaintiff seeking the implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer under the condition that the purchase and sale of farmland shall be certified;

B. The case holding that in case where the plaintiff sought the implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the cancellation of title trust, and the defendant denies the title trust of the plaintiff's claim and asserted that the plaintiff cannot respond to the claim for registration of ownership transfer on the ground of termination of trust because there is no proof of the farmland office where the farmland is located, the court cannot be held liable to question whether the plaintiff also seeks the registration of ownership transfer on the condition that the registration of farmland sale should be certified

The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissed judgment shall be assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

The provisions of the Foreign Exchange Control Act that restrict or prohibit the creation of claims between a resident and a nonresident, repayment, or payment to a nonresident by a resident (Articles 21 and 23, etc.) shall be interpreted as a regulatory regulation, and even if the act is in conflict with this, it shall not affect the judicial effect of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da2161, Apr. 22, 1975; Supreme Court Decision 80Da1655, Nov. 25, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 83Da51, Mar. 22, 1983).

Nevertheless, the court below held that the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy pursuant to the above provision of the law shall supplement the legal effect of private law, and it shall not be allowed to file a claim for transfer of ownership for the purpose of creation of real rights, unless the permission is granted. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles

However, with respect to the area of 4,350 square meters in the land of this case, which is farmland, the court below did not prove the sale and purchase of farmland in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for the part of the land of this case. The judgment of the part of the court below is justified as seen below. Thus, the illegality of the above misunderstanding of legal principles does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it does not affect the remaining part of the area of 198 square meters in Seopopopo-si ( Address 1 omitted) with the exception of farmland. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below is justified.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 (No. 4,350 square meters before Seopo-si (No. 2 omitted), the lower court’s decision that rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the deceased Nonparty had already terminated the title trust of this case on August 17, 1988 is justified in light of the evidentiary relation as stated in the lower judgment, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence.

In addition, the argument that the registration of ownership transfer can be sought on the condition that the registration of ownership transfer is obtained on the condition that the registration of farmland sale is completed. However, as in this case, in case where the plaintiffs seek the implementation of the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of the title trust, and the defendant denies the title trust of the plaintiffs' claim, and in case where the court claims that the land of this case cannot be complied with the claim for the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of the trust because there is no proof of the office having jurisdiction over the location regarding the farmland of this case, it cannot be said that the court has a duty to ask the plaintiffs as to whether or not the execution of the registration of ownership transfer under the condition that the registration of farmland sale should be obtained with respect to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the court below did not give the plaintiffs an opportunity to seek the registration of ownership transfer on the condition that the registration

3. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the part against the plaintiffs as to the land size of 198 square meters in Seopo-si ( Address 1 omitted) in its judgment shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. The plaintiffs' remaining appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal as to the dismissal of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)