(2) Whether a sales contract, which was actively involved in another person's breach of trust, constitutes an anti-social juristic act under Article 103 of the Civil Act and thus null and void

2. The sales contract executed by the buyer who actively participates in the act of breach of trust, such as actively recommending the seller to sell the second sale to the seller, constitutes an anti-social juristic act as stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act in violation of the concept of social justice.

The court below acknowledged that the non-party, his father, was originally owned by the defendant 2, and the non-party, who is the defendant's father, sold the above site and its ground buildings under the consent of the defendant, was merely an indirect fact, not an essential fact, which is the requisite for the legal act of this case, since the non-party's purchase of the above site from the defendant 2, and it was merely an indirect fact that the non-party's purchase of the above site from the non-party 2, and the non-party 3 was living in the building after purchasing the above 272-6th 61th 6th 61th son and one building on the ground of this case from the non-party 3. The non-party 3 purchased the building from the non-party 1, the non-party 272-6th son and one building on the ground of this case, and the non-party 3 was not aware of the fact that the plaintiff's building site and the ground building were donated to the plaintiff foundation as a member of the supervising association, and it could not be justified.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

In full view of the contents of each testimony made by the first instance court witness, the highest degree of difficulty, and the second degree of difficulty, the lower court does not agree with the fact that the authenticity of evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 was recognized by these testimony, and it is not concluded that it was based on a false or contradictory testimony before and after the fact. The result of Defendant No. 3’s questioning at the first instance court, which is intended to recognize the authenticity of evidence No. 4, appears to be a clerical error in the outcome of Defendant No. 2’s questioning. Moreover, the fact that evidence No. 4 was falsely prepared, cannot be found to be a reasonable ground. It is groundless for the argument that the establishment of the above document’s authenticity was illegal without any evidence.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

1. The court below acknowledged that the non-party, who is the father of the defendant 2, sold the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 (the defendant of the court of first instance) of Msan-dong 272-1 to 407 in Msan-dong 272 under the consent of the defendant on December 5, 1946, and 3 of the above ground, was proved to the purport that the non-party 9 and 10, which was the non-party 2's father, did so by considering the testimony of the first instance court witness 9 and 10 as stated above and the whole purport of the party's pleading, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the fact-finding was made without any evidence, and the defendant's consent is not only an indirect fact about the process of the sale

2. The facts that Defendant 3 purchased the same 272-6 Ga-dong 272-6 Ga-dong 271 and 1 Dong-dong 1 building on the ground were also indirect facts not in the principal facts of the instant case as seen above, and even if the Plaintiff did not assert it, the lower court may recognize it by evidence (or, however, the testimony of the witness of the first instance court), and it is deemed that there was no error of incomplete deliberation as to the argument.

3. The ground for appeal is without merit, on the ground that the plaintiff foundation did not directly have any relation to the dispute of this case and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on the land even though it received the donation of 330 square meters from the non-party 1 to 407 square meters of the same 272-1 to the non-party 407, and the two above ground buildings and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on the land without completing the registration of the transfer of ownership by the time the lawsuit is filed.

4. The court below did not err by finding the fact that Defendant 3 was a member of the supervising association, such as the Plaintiff Foundation, based on the testimony of the lawsuit witness, and the testimony of the above witness was false is without merit. In this case, as discussed in the court below, it cannot be deemed that there was a serious illegality that the court below should exercise its right of explanation as stated above. In the case where the court below acknowledged that Defendant 2 had been donated to the Plaintiff Foundation at the end of selling the above site 330 square meters, it was the fact that the court below recommended the Plaintiff who did not complete the ownership transfer registration thereafter, to purchase this site. It cannot be concluded that the Defendant was not aware of the obligation to perform the ownership transfer registration procedure for the building site, and it is not reasonable to conclude that the court below violated the logic or empirical rule on the premise that the above defendant did not know that the above defendant had been a member of the supervising association, who was the owner of the above building site, and that the court below did not have been aware of the fact that the above building site was sold back to the Plaintiff 2's original purport of the ownership transfer procedure as the above third party's.

There is no reason to argue that the court below's prior right to the preparation of evidence and fact-finding is returned to the court below.

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

As seen above, the court below held that the sales contract between the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 on the building site was made by actively inducing the defendant 2 to sell the building site in this case and constitutes anti-social legal act in violation of the concept of social justice and thus null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Code, and it cannot be said that there is any error in the misapprehension of legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, which is a matter for which the Supreme Court's precedent cannot be applied.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)