The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. According to the records, on December 26, 1961, the defendant purchased 83 square meters on the land of this case from the non-party 1, who was the husband of the plaintiff's internal father, and paid 45,320 won for the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's contract cancellation.

Therefore, in the form of the purchase again, the above provision on the penalty is not a security deposit for the right of cancellation in the ordinary sale, but rather a security deposit for the right of cancellation in the ordinary sale, and it should be viewed as the purport that the other party to the contract claims a penalty against the breaching party and agreed to cancel the contract. As such, the above non-party 1, whom the court below decided that the above non-party 1 deposited three times the contract deposit and the contract cannot be rescinded, and thus the above transaction between the defendant and the non-party 1 remains effective is just and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles

2. According to the records, the defendant asserts that the registration of transfer of ownership in this case by the defendant is the cause of invalidation of the sale in order to avoid the obligation of the above non-party 1's registration of transfer of ownership to the defendant. The purport of the registration is to say that the registration of transfer of ownership

No evidence exists to deem that there was a sale and purchase of the above land between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the other hand, while the Plaintiff was well aware of the aforementioned series of developments as to the land of this case between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant on the other hand for a multi-year basis, and after the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff was made in the name of the Plaintiff, it can be seen that there was an intention to exempt the above Nonparty 1 from performing the obligation of the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case. The registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff was made in the intention to exempt the above Nonparty 1 from performing the obligation of the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the Defendant as to the land of this case, and the conclusion that the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff was null and void is not erroneous, but it is not in violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principle.

3. Although the plaintiff's right is presumed to be invalid because of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff as to the land of this case, so long as it is concluded that the registration of transfer of ownership is null and void, such presumption was broken regardless of cancellation of the registration. Therefore, the original decision is just and it cannot be said that there is a inconsistent reasoning like the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)