[2] The validity of each purchase and sale contract in a case where land within the land transaction permission zone was previously sold for the purpose of obtaining gains from resale under an agreement on registration of intermediate omission (=final invalidation)

[2] In a case where a land transaction contract subject to permission under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is a contract that excludes permission from the beginning or deviates from the beginning, it is not likely to become effective as a final and conclusive invalidation without any reason to wait for whether permission is granted. In a case where the land within the land transaction permission zone is a real estate broker B and B through Byung for the purpose of obtaining gains profits from resale under an agreement on the interim omission registration without obtaining a transaction permission or completing a registration of transfer of ownership, each contract is null and void in its final and conclusive, and there is no room for each purchaser to have the right to claim the performance of the duty to cooperate in the application procedure for permission of land transaction against each seller, and therefore, it cannot be said that each purchaser has the right to claim the performance of the duty to cooperate

1. On the first ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff purchased the above land from the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 on the non-party 1's behalf of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 on the ground that the non-party 4 purchased the above land from the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 on the non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 purchased the above land on the non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 1'

B. However, the parties who intend to enter into a sale contract on the land located within the area permitted for land transaction under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 193) shall jointly obtain permission from the competent authorities. In this case, if the land in this case was sold to the above non-party 3, the owner of the land, and the above non-party 3 sold the land in succession to the plaintiff and the above non-party 5, the parties to each contract should obtain land transaction permission as to each of the above sales contracts, namely, the above non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the above non-party 3 did not obtain the sale contract permission from the seller, and the plaintiff and the above non-party 4 were not entitled to obtain the first land transaction permission from the seller to the above non-party 1, the plaintiff and the above non-party 5, who are the parties to the sale. Thus, even if the above non-party 4 and the above non-party 5 were not entitled to obtain the first land transaction permission.

In such interpretation, if an agreement on the intermediate omission registration is reached, it shall be deemed that the sales contract was concluded between the first seller and the last buyer, and if only the land transaction permission is valid, the intermediate seller’s act of selling and buying entered into without permission shall be deemed valid. Ultimately, the purpose of this Act is to prevent real estate speculation, which is to achieve, is to prevent the intermediate seller’s act of speculation.

In addition, since the land transaction contract to be permitted under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is a land transaction contract that excludes the above permission or leaves room for becoming effective as it becomes final and conclusive without waiting for whether to permit the above land transaction contract (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243, Dec. 24, 191). According to the records of this case, the above land transaction contract between the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 and the above non-party 3 was purchased by resale of the land transaction purpose and obtain profits from the sale of the above land without any intention to complete the registration of ownership transfer by obtaining the land transaction permission in its own name. Thus, the above land transaction contract cannot be seen as valid and invalid for the non-party 4 to obtain the above land transaction permission from the above non-party 3 and the non-party 3 to the above non-party 4 to obtain the above land transaction permission from the buyer of the above non-party 3 as well as to obtain the above land transaction permission from the above non-party 2 and the above non-party 3.

C. Therefore, in this case, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right to claim the fulfillment of the obligation to cooperate in the procedure of land transaction permission directly against the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2. In addition, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right to claim the fulfillment of the obligation to cooperate in the procedure of land transaction permission against the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 by subrogation of the above non-party 4 and the non-party 3 in order. Thus, the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 cannot exercise the right to cooperate in the procedure of land transaction permission procedure against the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 by subrogation of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the preserved right to claim the performance of the obligation to cooperate in the procedure of land transaction permission, and the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case (However, as to the defendant 1, the main action against the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 is unlawful. Accordingly, the judgment below is justified. It has merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)