logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.12.22 2015다205086
소유권말소등기
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to res judicata, etc. of the conciliation protocol (Ground of appeal No. 1)

A. (1) Article 7(1) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 2950, Dec. 31, 1976) provides that “An employee engaged in affairs concerning State property shall not acquire, or exchange with his/her own property, any State property to be disposed of,” and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that “an employee engaged in affairs concerning State property shall not acquire, or exchange with, such property.”

In order to promote the fairness of the administrative affairs of disposal of state property, this article strictly prohibits employees engaged in the relevant affairs by pointing out the most significant acts suspected of being illegal, and invalidates the judicial effect of the violation of the prohibition regulations.

The act of an employee engaged in the business of acquiring State property in the name of another person is invalid as an evasion of law to avoid the application of the above provisions, which is a mandatory law, even though the act of acquiring State property is not directly prohibited by the above Act.

Furthermore, insofar as this Act does not have a provision that restricts the other party who can assert the invalidation in order to protect transaction safety, the invalidation may be asserted in principle by anyone. Thus, the act of acquiring state property acquired by a third party in violation of such provision is null and void as a matter of course.

(2) The conciliation protocol has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, such as a protocol of conciliation by court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da43799, May 16, 1997). According to the content of conciliation, the conciliation protocol is deemed to have the original effect of acquiring and extinguishing rights (see, e.g., Article 29 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act; Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 732 of the Civil Act). If conciliation is concluded between the parties, the relationship of rights

However, the protocol of mediation.

arrow