[1] In a case where the designation of a land transaction contract for the land within the permitted area is cancelled under the dynamic invalidation during the designated period of land transaction permission, whether such land transaction contract shall be deemed to be valid on a final basis (affirmative)

[2] Whether a lawsuit may be brought to dispute the validity of permission for land transaction with respect to the transaction of land, the designation of which is revoked (negative)

[1] The purport of cancelling the designation of a land transaction permission area by the Minister of Construction and Transportation as to the land designated as a land transaction permission area is no longer impeding the public interest in order to achieve the land transaction permission system, which means the character and conduct of speculative land transaction and the prevention of a sudden increase in land prices, even if the designation is no longer granted for individual land transaction within the said area. Since the necessity of permission has ceased to exist, the necessity of permission has ceased to exist, so treating the land transaction contract within the said permission area as well as the permission granted for the land transaction contract on the land within the said permission area so that the transaction party can realize private autonomy in order for the transaction party to achieve the pertinent land transaction contract by cancelling the public law regulation as to private autonomy and achieve the pertinent land transaction contract. Therefore, the designation of a land transaction permission area as to the land within the said permission area should no longer be deemed as a conclusive validity without the need to obtain the land transaction permission from the competent administrative agency, except in cases where the land transaction

[2] The land transaction permission does not require the land transaction permission as to the land transaction transaction for which the designation of the land transaction permission was cancelled. Thus, it would be deemed that there was no benefit in litigation over the validity of the land transaction permission.

[1] Articles 21-2 and 21-3 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory / [2] Articles 21-2 and 21-3 of the Act on the Utilization and Management

[2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da40459 delivered on June 17, 1999 (Gong199Ha, 1398)

Plaintiff

The head of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government

Busan High Court Decision 96Gu9614 delivered on June 25, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

Judgment ex officio is made.

The purport of cancelling the designation of a land transaction permission area with respect to the land designated as a land transaction permission area has no obstacle to the public interest in order to achieve the land transaction permission system, such as the character and conduct of speculative land transaction and the prevention of rapid increase in land prices, even if the permission is no longer obtained, and the necessity of permission has ceased to exist, so that the land transaction permission system as to the land transaction contract within the permission area can be treated equally as obtaining permission on the land transaction contract within the permission area so that the parties to the transaction can realize private autonomy in order for the transaction to achieve the relevant land transaction contract by cancelling regulations under public law as to private autonomy and achieve the relevant land transaction contract. Therefore, unless the land transaction contract for the land within the permission area designated as a permission area becomes final and conclusive for any other reason before the designation of the permission area is cancelled, it shall not be deemed that the relevant administrative agency becomes final and conclusive without the need to obtain the land transaction permission, and the relevant contract still be deemed invalid (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da40459, Jun. 17, 1999).

The record reveals that the instant land in the holding of the court below was included in the regulation zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of land from the Gyeongnam-do, and thereafter designated as the permission zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and the Minister of Construction and Transportation cancelled all land transaction permission zones in the nation designated until January 10, 198 on January 31, 1998, and thus, the instant land does not constitute land transaction permission zones.

Therefore, since the land transaction permission does not require a land transaction permission regarding the transaction of this case for which the designation of land transaction permission was cancelled, the lawsuit of this case disputing the validity of the land transaction permission granted on July 15, 1996 shall be deemed to have become nonexistent after the cancellation on January 31, 1998.

Therefore, on the premise that there is a benefit in the lawsuit of this case, the judgment of the court below which judged the merits of this case shall be reversed, and this court shall dismiss the lawsuit of this case for which the interest in the lawsuit is not recognized by its own decision based on the established facts, and the total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and it is so decided

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)