The validity of an exchange contract where it is not permitted by the competent authority to conclude the exchange contract on the basic property of the incorporated foundation.

In the conclusion of an exchange contract regarding the basic property of a foundation foundation, if the exchange contract was not approved by the competent authority regarding the disposal of the basic property, the exchange contract cannot take effect, and if the above exchange contract is null and void, the transfer compensation at the market price and the virtual value of the foundation foundation is null and void, which is merely an alteration of the act of disposing of the basic property of the foundation foundation, and thus cannot be claimed as compensation for transfer, which is a transformation of

Article 45 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da1975 delivered on June 11, 1974 (Kakadd 10737; Supreme Court Decision 22 ②B citizen85; Decision 45(9)217 of the Civil Act; Court Gazette 494No7946 Decided June 11, 197)

Plaintiff

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on May 2, 201

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (70 Ghana1199)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On January 14, 1965, Gwangju District Court Decision 476No. 1964 No. 10 October 14, 1964, for the defendant foundation foundation, the defendant foundation completed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the ground of donation on October 1, 1964. The defendant foundation shall implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer on the real estate to the plaintiff on November 6, 1963.

The Defendant Incorporated Foundation shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,960,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from January 15, 1965 to the date of full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

First of all, we judge the plaintiff's claim.

In full view of the testimony of Non-Party 1 and the whole purport of the parties' arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 10 without dispute in the establishment, the real estate recorded in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as this real estate) was originally the basic property of the defendant foundation foundation, Gwangju-dong Foundation, Gwangju-dong Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant foundation"), but it can be recognized that the foundation made the registration of transfer of ownership to the defendant foundation on January 14, 1965 on the ground of donation from October 1, 1964 to the defendant foundation foundation, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to recognize the ownership of the above real estate by transferring the ownership of the above real estate to the defendant foundation's real estate No. 1 on November 6, 1963, considering the testimony of the non-party 2 and 3 by the witness non-party 1 and the witness's testimony in Gap evidence No. 1 which are acknowledged to be established by his testimony, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to recognize the ownership of the above real estate to be transferred to the plaintiff.

However, as seen above, the Plaintiff’s legal representative, like the above recognition, entered into an exchange contract with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s legal representative completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation to the Plaintiff’s legal representative, as the Defendants are the same corporation, and the representative is also the same, and the registration of invalidity due to false collusion is cancelled. As such, the Defendant’s legal representative completed the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate under the above exchange contract with the Plaintiff.

Since the defendant asserts this, I will first look at whether the above exchange contract between the defendant foundation foundation and the plaintiff is valid or not.

The articles of incorporation of an incorporated foundation shall state the provisions concerning assets pursuant to Article 43 and Article 40 subparag. 4 of the Civil Act. Therefore, since the disposal of basic assets of an incorporated foundation is caused by the amendment of the articles of incorporation of the incorporated foundation, if the articles of incorporation is not modified, the disposal of basic assets of the incorporated foundation shall not take effect. It shall not take effect without obtaining the approval of the competent Minister.

However, according to the above recognition and the testimony of Non-Party 2 and Non-Party 4 of the first instance trial witness as to this real estate, which is a foundation foundation, in concluding an exchange contract with the plaintiff, such as the above recognition, the above exchange contract cannot be effective since it is recognized that the disposition of basic property of the foundation was not permitted by the competent authority.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation registration and transfer registration under the premise that the exchange contract is valid shall be without examining the remainder.

The next decision is made on the conjunctive claim against the defendant Chocheon-ju Foundation.

If the plaintiff's attorney cannot execute the procedure for transfer of ownership because the above exchange contract for domestic affairs is not approved by the competent authority, it is impossible to perform the procedure for transfer of ownership due to the defendant's reasons attributable to the defendant, and thus, he asserts that the above exchange contract is preliminary claim for compensation of KRW 23,960,000, the current price of the real estate in this case (the main property in this case) with transfer compensation. Thus, the above contract is null and void because the above exchange contract is not approved by the competent Minister, which is the disposal of the basic property of the foundation, is not approved by the competent Minister. Thus, the plaintiff's attorney's claim for transfer compensation in lieu of the execution of the contract is merely a change of the disposal of the basic property of the foundation, and it is not possible to claim transfer compensation, which is a change of the disposal of the basic property

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable as it is, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge)