[Judgment of the court below]

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Where the obligation to register the transfer of ownership becomes impossible due to expropriation of a real estate which is the object of sale, etc., the claimant for registration may seek the transfer of the right to a claim for expropriation acquired by the person liable for registration as an exercise of the right to a claim for expropriation against the person liable for registration or seek the return of the compensation paid by the person liable for registration (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da56910, Oct. 29, 1996, etc.). However, such right to claim is a right granted to the person liable for registration according to the impossibility of the performance of the obligation to register the transfer of ownership, which is the principal obligation of the person liable for registration under the sale contract, while the sale contract which is the premise is effective and continued, as a sale contract for the land within the land transaction permission zone is merely a legal act which has not yet been approved by the competent authority, and thus it is clear that the sale contract in the current invalid state cannot objectively be the date of permission due to expropriation of the real estate which is the object of sale, barring special circumstances.

The court below accepted part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and acknowledged the fact that when the plaintiffs purchased the instant land within the land transaction permission zone from the defendant on April 4, 2003 and paid the price in excess of the above price, the above land was incorporated into the projects of national defense and military installations, the defendant responded to the request of the Ministry of National Defense for the compensation consultation under Article 16 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, and thereby the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Republic of Korea on November 15, 2004, and the defendant received the compensation KRW 113,97,700 as of November 19, 200.

Based on the facts acknowledged above, the court below held that since the sales contract of this case was null and void as it did not take effect since the contract of this case was null and void as it did not take effect in the state of dynamic invalidation, and the defendant did not bear a duty to transfer ownership, which is the main duty to the plaintiffs, and the sale contract became null and void objectively due to expropriation of the land of this case, even though the defendant can claim damages on the ground of non-performance of the duty to cooperate in the procedure for applying for land transaction permission, the claim to be recognized as the effect of non-performance of the duty to transfer ownership, which is the main duty under the premise that the sale contract is valid, does not occur, and on the ground of the agreement that "compensation, compensation, and other legal relationship all belong to the buyer," the court below held that it would be difficult to recognize the purpose of legislation of the former Land Transaction Act to compensate for damages arising from the seller's breach of duty to cooperate in the procedure for land transaction permission before obtaining the land transaction permission even if it would result in the buyer's right to land transaction transfer.

According to the above legal principles, as long as the sales contract becomes null and void as the land of this case was expropriated without permission for land transaction, not only a claim based on the premise of validity of the above sales contract, but also a claim for the performance of the principal obligation under the above sales contract as an agreement incidental to the sales contract is the substance of the agreement, there is no room to acknowledge the validity of the above special agreement. Even if the above special agreement was made specially by predicting the invalidity of the sales contract of this case, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, it shall be deemed null and void as an agreement that deviates from the legislative intent of the above land transaction permission system, which is a mandatory provision. Thus, the judgment of the court below rejecting the plaintiffs'

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principle as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Go-chul

Justices Kim Ji-hyung of the District Court

Justices Lee Jae-chul