A. Whether the acquisition of a foreigner’s right to a building and the application of the Foreigner’s Land Acquisition Act is made (negative)

B. Whether Article 30 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act is a valid provision (negative)

(c) A lessor who leases the building to a truster of the ownership of a building and marks such landlord on the lease contract as a trustee; and

A. Since the Foreigner’s Land Acquisition Act aims to regulate the acquisition or loss of rights to land by foreigners or foreign corporations, there is no room to apply the above Act to the acquisition of rights to buildings.

(b)The provision that a non-resident under the Foreign Exchange Control Act shall not acquire any real estate in the Republic of Korea or any right thereof without the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy is merely an effective law but merely an enforcement law.

C. In a case where the Plaintiff purchased a building and completed the registration of ownership transfer to its wife, and leased it to the Defendant, if the lessor entered the lessor in the convenience lease agreement in his name as the registration name, the said lease is deemed to be the Plaintiff.

Article 1 of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act, Article 30 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 72Da2161 Decided April 22, 1975

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na1026 delivered on September 17, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As stipulated in Article 1, the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act is to regulate the acquisition, loss, and transfer of rights to the land of foreigners or foreign corporations, and it has certain restrictions on the acquisition of rights to the land. This case is clearly recorded that the acquisition of rights to the land is about the plaintiff's acquisition of rights to the building not subject to such restrictions. Thus, there is no room for applying the above Act. Therefore, the theory of lawsuit on this point is groundless.

2. The Foreign Exchange Control Act provides that a non-resident shall not acquire any real estate in the Republic of Korea or any right related thereto without the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy (see Article 30 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act and Article 37 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). However, even if the non-resident acts contrary to or in violation of the above restriction provisions because it is not an effective law but an effective law, it does not affect the judicial validity (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da2161 delivered on April 22, 1975). Thus, the judgment of the court below is just in its conclusion that there is no defect in the judicial validity in the acquisition of the real estate by the plaintiff, and the theory of lawsuit based on the premise that the restriction provisions in the Foreign Exchange Control Act are an effective law, and the party members who conflict with this decision shall be repealed by the Decision 79Da

3. The purport of the judgment of the court below is that the plaintiff purchased the building solely from the plaintiff, but the registration of transfer of ownership was completed with title trust to the non-party, who is its wife, and thereafter, the plaintiff leased the building that was recognized as having passed the registration of transfer of ownership under the plaintiff's name, and that at that time, the plaintiff entered the lessor in the convenience lease agreement as the above non-party, such as the registration of transfer of ownership, because it was in the name of the non-party on the register. The records show that this measure is acceptable, and there is no error of law such as the theory of litigation or the theory of fact-finding in the evidence cooking or fact-finding which was completed in the process of the plaintiff's explanation of the claim for the registration of transfer of ownership. It is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yu Tae-tae (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young, Kim Jong-young, Lee Jong-young, Lee Jong-young, Lee Jong-young, Lee J.