The Minister of Health and Welfare, a supervisory office of a foundation foundation, grants a condition precedent permission on the sale of foundation basic property.

If the Minister of Health and Welfare, who is the supervisory authority of the defendant, has granted the suspension condition permission to order the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant for the real estate, the above permission disposition may not take effect unless the condition is fulfilled, and no permission concerning the sale of the property is granted.

Article 45 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293Da339 delivered on February 23, 1961 (Supreme Court Decision 8098DaKad 8098, Decision 45(2)217 of the Civil Act) 76Da486 delivered on November 9, 1976 (Supreme Court Decision 11366 delivered on November 9, 1976, Decision 243Da3285 delivered on June 23, 196, Decision 550 delivered on July 217, 197

Plaintiff

A mutually beneficial Infant Care Center, a foundation;

Seoul District Court of First Instance (67Ga11251)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On June 7, 1967, the defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the plaintiff's real estate stated in the attached list.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

Judgment like the Disposition

1. Facts that no dispute exists;

In concluding a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on June 7, 1967 to purchase real estate listed in the attached list of the defendant's possession with 1.5 million won, the contract shall be paid as down payment per contract date, 180,000 won as down payment, and 8.20,000 won as part payment on June 15 of the same year, respectively, and the remainder shall be paid as up to August 7 of the same year by delivery and redemption of documents required for transfer registration of ownership until August of the same year, and the plaintiff shall have no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination as to the existence of a right to claim ownership transfer registration

A) Exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to claim registration

According to the statement of Gap evidence No. 4 (deposit) and the purport of plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff claims on October 14, 1967 that the remaining purchase price shall be paid in full and five hundred thousand won shall be paid in accordance with the agreement as decided by the plaintiff and that the registration of ownership transfer shall be completed for the real estate.

B) The defendant's non-performance defense

As to the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant's attorney should obtain a conditional permission from the competent authority to purchase the substitute properties corresponding to the basic properties of this case in selling the real estate to the plaintiff. Thus, since the defendant entered into a sales contract with the non-party 3 on the real estate equivalent to the appraised value of the fundamental properties of this case, the defendant cannot fulfill the conditions attached by the competent authority, and therefore the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant becomes null and void, so the defendant cannot fulfill the conditions attached by the competent authority on the ground that the sale price was lower than the market price. Therefore, the sales contract on the real estate of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant becomes null and void.

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 5-1 (the public notice of permission for the acquisition of basic property, Eul evidence 4), 2-2 (the case of application for permission for the acquisition of property loan), 6-3 (the case of application for permission for the registration of the transfer of property loan), 7-7 (the sales contract), 8-8 (the written consent for the sale), 5-1 through 3 (each certified copy of the register), 6-3 (the case of application for the certification of the articles of incorporation), and the testimony of non-party 1 and non-party 2 of the trial court which are presumed to have been authenticity of the whole as follows.

In other words, the real estate recorded in the attached list is the defendant's fundamental property, and the defendant decided to dispose of the real estate as stated above, and applied to the Minister of Health and Welfare, who is the competent authority for the permission to dispose of the real estate, but the defendant was not admitted. The defendant, upon the resolution of the defendant's board of directors, decided to purchase the real estate corresponding to the basic property under the intention to execute the above sales contract concluded with the plaintiff, on August 1, 1967, which was owned by the non-party 3, to purchase the real estate with the non-party 1,50,000 won at 1,50,000 won at 1,000 won at 207,000 won on the date of the conclusion of the sales contract, and applied for the permission to dispose of the real estate under the above condition that the defendant would sell the above real estate to the non-party 1,500,0000 won on the date of the above contract to sell the real estate to the non-party 4.

Thus, the Minister of Health and Welfare, who is the supervisory authority of the defendant, shall be deemed to have become unable to take effect due to the non-performance of the condition of suspension due to a cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is not obligated to perform the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff for the real estate. Therefore, the defendant's defense is well-grounded.

C) Plaintiff’s re-port change

As to the defense of the above defendant, even if the suspension condition of the permission of disposal by the Minister of Health and Welfare is necessary in the sales contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the disposition permission by the competent authority cannot take effect in preference to the general transaction relation. (2) Even if non-party 3 is deferred, the defendant obtained the permission from the competent authority on the condition of suspending the purchase of the real estate owned by the non-party 3 as property on behalf of the defendant, but the failure of the defendant to purchase the property on behalf of the defendant constitutes a cause attributable to the defendant, which is contrary to the good faith principle, so the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant remains effective

(1) However, in regard to the issue of (1), since the disposal of basic property by the foundation falls under the difficulty of amending the so-called articles of incorporation, and the purpose of the existence of the foundation is the effective requirement as permitted by the competent authority under the consideration of the purpose of the existence of the foundation, there is no room to externally rupture in general transaction relations. As to the issue of (2), it is only based on the facts stated above, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a cause attributable to the defendant as alleged in the above, the above re-

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the principal lawsuit, which is premised on the validity of the sales contract on the real estate concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, shall be dismissed because it is unfair. The defendant's appeal against the original judgment which differs in this conclusion is reasonable, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 96, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judge Syle (Presiding Judge)