B. Whether the seller is a person who administers another’s business, who is the subject of the breach of trust, in the event that the seller sells land within the regulatory zone under the above Paragraph A but did not obtain permission for transaction

B. The seller cannot be deemed to have a duty to cooperate with the buyer in the registration of transfer of ownership, unless he/she has sold the land within the regulatory zone under the above Paragraph (a), but has not obtained the permission for transaction under the same Act. Therefore, the seller cannot be deemed to be a person who administers another's business.

1. On December 3, 190 and December 31, 1990, the judgment of the court below cited the explanation of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant sold each of the lands of this case owned by the co-defendant C to the victim D and E, and received the down payment and intermediate payment, so he actively recommended two sale and purchase of each of the above lands with the knowledge that there is a duty to make a registration of ownership transfer as to each of the above lands at the same time when he received the balance, and then recommended two sale and purchase, and around February 13, 1991, after purchasing each of the above lands from the above C double, acquired property benefits and made a registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-indicted F, etc., and recognized that the

2. However, according to the records, each land in this case is likely to be located within the regulation zone under Article 21-2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory. A contract for the transaction of transferring or establishing rights, such as ownership, to the land located within the regulation zone, becomes effective after obtaining permission from the competent authority under Article 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and the effect of real rights, as well as the effect of bonds, does not occur before obtaining permission (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da12243, Dec. 24, 191). Thus, even if the above C sold each land to the above victims, if the above victims did not obtain the permission for the transaction under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, such contract has no effect on claims, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above C has a duty to cooperate with the above victims in the transfer registration of ownership, and therefore, it cannot be deemed a person who administers another's business, the subject of breach of trust.

Although there is no evidence to prove that the above transaction permission was obtained on the records, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the transaction permission under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the premise that each transaction contract between C and the victims is valid, and thus, it is reasonable to discuss this point.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)