2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or they can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5 to 9 (including each branch number), and there is no counter-proof.

A. On February 23, 199, the Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen, entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, with the purchase price of KRW 210 million for the purchase price of KRW 136-34,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the same day, and paid the Defendant the remainder payment of KRW 190,000,000,000,000 for the remainder payment on March 23, 199.

B. After that, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of the purchase price to the Plaintiff, on June 15, 2002, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2002Da419550 million won and damages for delay against the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as Daejeon District Court Decision 2002Ga41950 million won and damages for delay, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s obligation to transfer the ownership of the farmland in this case was impossible to implement the terms and conditions for cancellation, since the Plaintiff’s purchase of the farmland in this case was null and void pursuant to Article 6 of the Farmland Act, because it did not purchase the farmland in this case for the purpose of investment, or the instant sale contract was made on the condition that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to transfer the ownership of the Plaintiff’s name because it was impossible for the Plaintiff to transfer the ownership to the Plaintiff.)

C. After that, on November 15, 2002, the market price of the farmland in this case was 273,654,000 won as of November 15, 2002 following the court's entrustment of market price appraisal according to the plaintiff's request, the plaintiff reduced the plaintiff's claim of the previous suit "273,654,000 won and 210,000,000 won from March 23, 1999 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, 5% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and 63,654,000 won per annum from the next day to the day of the judgment of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment."

D. Although the previous suit was referred to conciliation during the process of proceeding, it did not lead to conciliation due to the difference between the amount requested by the Plaintiff and the amount to be paid by the Defendant.

E. During that period, the Plaintiff became aware that even a foreign nationality Korean can obtain the qualification certificate if he/she followed a certain procedure, and applied for the registration of ownership transfer with the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland after undergoing the procedure. On February 28, 2003, the Plaintiff withdrawn the previous suit on February 28, 2003. However, the Defendant did not have the effect of withdrawal with his/her consent.

F. After that, on March 3, 2003, the Plaintiff issued the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland of this case by the head of Ansan-gu Eup in the name of an Ansan-do, a Korean senior, and subsequently, issued the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland of this case, and, on January 9, 2004, the Plaintiff was awarded the judgment of the Plaintiff on March 15, 2003, by filing the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the registration of ownership transfer against the Defendant on the ground of sale as of February 23, 1999, stating that “The Plaintiff purchased the farmland of this case with his own awareness and himself, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the farmland of this case due to sale as of February 23, 199.”

G. After that, on July 14, 2004, the defendant appealed, and the lawsuit of this case is pending in the trial of the party, the defendant accepted and accepted the plaintiff's claim at the date of pleading of the previous lawsuit, and accordingly, the protocol of recognition and recognition was prepared.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiff filed a claim for the return of the purchase price on the premise that the sales contract of this case is null and void, and in this case, the plaintiff filed a claim for the registration of ownership transfer under the sales contract on the premise that the sales contract of this case is valid. In the previous suit, the right to claim the return of the purchase price premised on the invalidation of the sales contract of this case is confirmed as a result of the preparation of a report on recognition of the content that the defendant recognizes the plaintiff's claim in the previous suit. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the registration of ownership transfer under the premise that the contract of this case is valid in the previous suit is a claim for confirmation of the legal relationship inconsistent with the established legal relationship in the previous suit. In addition, if the judgment inconsistent with the previous suit of this case is made, the plaintiff, the buyer, obtained double profits by receiving the registration of ownership transfer along with the return of the purchase price, and this is

B. As to this, the plaintiff cannot claim a return of the purchase price, and the possibility of losing the lawsuit of this case can not be ruled out. The defendant maintained the previous suit. The plaintiff cannot be viewed as having no own intent or own intent at the time of the contract of this case. Even if the purchaser is a foreigner, the contract of this case can be issued with the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland even if it is possible for the purchaser to issue the certificate, and thus, the plaintiff's withdrawal of the lawsuit of this case is not null and void, and even if the contract of this case was rejected at the first trial of the lawsuit of this case and it is highly likely for the plaintiff to win the lawsuit at the appellate trial of this case and even at the appellate trial of this case, it is against the prior act and good faith and against good morals and other social order, and it is confirmed that the contract of this case was null and void in the first trial of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's allegation that there is no right to claim a return of purchase price which is the object of the lawsuit of this case, and thus, it is null and void.

C. In addition, the plaintiff argued to the effect that the subject matter of the lawsuit and the subject matter of the lawsuit are not inconsistent and that the res judicata of the previous lawsuit does not extend to this case because the subject matter of the lawsuit and the subject matter of the lawsuit are not inconsistent, even if the plaintiff did not waive his claim in the previous lawsuit after the acquisition of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland, and the defendant did not have the intent of self-defising or self-defising, so long as the plaintiff did not have the intent of self-defising, the subject matter of the lawsuit and the subject matter of the lawsuit in the previous lawsuit are inconsistent with the subject matter of the previous lawsuit and the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case are inconsistent, as long as the subject matter of the lawsuit in this case continues to exist after the acquisition of the qualification certificate for acquisition

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked as it is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Dong-ho (Presiding Judge) et al.