Cases where a person to whom land is transferred by an exchange contract from a person other than the registered titleholder loses in the lawsuit claiming the transfer of land, and the right of rescission due to impossibility of performing the obligation for transfer registration.

(a) Conclusion of an exchange contract with a person other than the registered titleholder, and delivery of land accordingly;

against the claim for the transfer of land filed by the registered titleholder.

In fact, it cannot be said that the claim for ownership transfer registration cannot be fulfilled.

In order to cancel the exchange contract, it is notified that it will be performed within a reasonable period.

B. The proof of the location of the farmland office under Paragraph 2 of this Article is the valid requirement for the transfer of farmland ownership, and there is no proof, and it cannot be deemed that the sale or exchange contract, which is a bond contract, is null and void.

Articles 540 and 570 of the Civil Act

Mentality

Kim Young-young

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na94 decided May 27, 1965

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Supreme Court Decision 201Do1488 delivered on May 2, 2011, 2008 held that the Supreme Court Decision 201Do1298 delivered on May 2, 2011, 2008 held that the Supreme Court Decision 201Do1198 delivered on May 2, 201, 201 held that the Supreme Court Decision 200Do1388 delivered on May 2, 201

Judgment on ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff did not exercise his/her right to cancel the contract on the land, which is the object of exchange between the Defendant based on evidence, and that the ownership of the land was proved to have been owned by the genuine right holder, and that the Plaintiff had expressed his/her intent to cancel the contract to crude oil. However, the lower court concluded an exchange contract with the Defendant to transfer one of the real estate and one of the 666 units of land, which was purchased on the land, to the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not exercise his/her right to cancel the contract on the land, and that the Plaintiff did not exercise his/her right to cancel the contract on the land, which is the object of exchange between the Defendant and the Defendant, was not subject to the lower court’s decision that the Plaintiff did not exercise his/her right to cancel the contract, and that the Plaintiff did not exercise his/her right to cancel the contract on the land, which was not subject to the lower court’s decision on the ground that the Plaintiff did not exercise his/her right to cancel the contract on the land, which was in force of the Plaintiff’s claim for exchange.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench by omitting judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal and destroying the original judgment.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court