소유권이전등기
1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the determination of the allegations added by the court of first instance, the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the same shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the assertion of addition of the trial room
A. After the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant’s assertion continued to change the purchaser in the process of applying for land transaction permission more than three times, and thereafter, the purchaser was asked at the Mapo-gu Office, the competent administrative agency. The Defendant expressed his/her intent to refuse to comply with the obligation to cooperate in the application for land transaction permission, and thereafter the Plaintiffs withdraw the application for land transaction permission.
This constitutes a case where both parties clearly express their intent to refuse to perform the duty to cooperate in the application for land transaction permission, and thus the sales contract of this case, which was in a state of dynamic invalidation, became null and void.
B. In a case where the transaction contract is in a state of flexible invalidation due to the lack of land transaction permission as prescribed by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, not only when there is a non-permission disposition by the competent authority, but also when both parties express their intent to refuse the performance of the duty to cooperate with the permission, the contract cannot be deemed to continue to be in a state of unilateral invalidation, i.e., the contract relationship with the permission, i., the passive invalidation of the contract, and the contract relationship is null and void on a conclusive basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da54501, Jun. 28, 1996). According to the health stand and the witness G of the first instance court, according to the testimony of the certified judicial scrivener office, I need not request the permission of land transaction permission in the names of the plaintiffs and the defendant on October 15, 2012, which was prepared with the delegation of the plaintiffs and the defendant, and which was delegated by the defendant, to enter into a sales contract by the defendant.