The appeal by the defendant is dismissed. The costs of appeal concerning this are assessed against the defendant Yule. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant Yule.

According to the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, the court below is hard to find that even if the defendant YY had the right to occupy and use the whole two parcels of land in this case and paid the prescribed occupation and use fees to the authorities, it is merely the premise of the family's explanation. It does not recognize the fact that the defendant paid the land in this case with the lawful occupation and use permission, and even if based on the records, it is hard to find that the defendant obtained a legitimate occupation and use permission for the land in this case, and that the non-party YY was obviously illegal possession.

The court below's decision is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 27 (1) of the State Property Act or Article 8 of the above sales contract, which led to the submission of false evidentiary documents to the competent tax office for the purchase contract of two parcels of land of this case, which is a state-owned miscellaneous property, and that the head of the competent Daegu Regional Tax Office lawful the cancellation of the sales contract for the part of this case's land pursuant to Article 27 (1) of the State Property Act or Article 8 of the above sales contract.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that as to the plaintiff's assertion by the defendant Kim Jong-il's legal representative who did not oppose the cancellation of the above sale contract, since the cancellation of the contract is a bona fide third person who acquired the plaintiff's land in this case's judgment against the plaintiff's sulfur, even though the cancellation of the contract is valid, the above cancellation cannot be asserted against the defendant Kim Jong-sik, the plaintiff's legal interest in denying the cancellation at the time of the cancellation of the contract's declaration of intention by fraud, i.e., a third person who had an interest in the validity of the cancellation before the cancellation, and a third person who had an interest in the validity of the cancellation after the cancellation cannot be asserted against the third person in good faith, even though he had known the fact that the cancellation of the contract cannot be asserted against the third person in good faith, under the premise that the cancellation of the contract cannot be asserted against the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung's bona fide interest in the cancellation of the sale contract after the cancellation of the contract.

However, if the declaration of intention of a juristic act by fraud is cancelled, it cannot be viewed as null and void from the beginning of the act due to the retroactive effect of cancellation. Thus, even if the legal relationship not compatible with the person claiming the cancellation was cancelled, it should not be viewed that the cancellation of the declaration of intention against all third parties who had known about the declaration of intention by fraud and the cancellation of the declaration of intention should not be set up against the third parties. In this case, the purport of Article 110 (3) of the Civil Act, which aims to protect transaction safety, should be interpreted in accordance with the purport of Article 110 (3) of the Civil Act. Thus, even if the plaintiff's cancellation of the sale contract against the defendant Y Kim Yong who again purchased and acquired the land after the cancellation of the contract, it cannot be set up against the third party acting in good faith who had known about the above cancellation, and therefore, it cannot be set up as the invalid registration of ownership transfer without distinction from the malicious person, and therefore, it is affected by the cancellation of the declaration of intention by fraud and the legal principles as to the third parties acting in good faith.

Therefore, among the original judgment, the part against which the appeal by Defendant Kim Yong-ran was dismissed shall be reversed and remanded, and the appeal by Defendant Yellow-ran shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-hee (Presiding Justice)