Whether a seller is exempted from the obligation to perform the registration procedure for transfer of ownership pursuant to the above contract if the buyer fails to receive the certificate of completion of the contract for sale of land within the reported area under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

When applying for the registration of ownership transfer according to a sales contract for land within the reported zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the certificate of completion of the land transaction contract issued by the head of the competent Gu pursuant to the same Act shall be attached, but the buyer is unable to obtain the same certificate of completion, and the seller is not exempted from the obligation to perform the procedure of registration of ownership transfer according to

Article 21-7 of the Act on Utilization and Management

Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2777 delivered on Nov. 22, 1988 (Gong1989,22) 90Da14218 delivered on Feb. 12, 1991 (Gong1991,97) 91Da12349 delivered on Feb. 14, 1992 (Gong192,1011)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na1235 delivered on February 18, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. The defendants' appeal No. 1 points out a theory of determination on the first ground of appeal (the plaintiff's representative on June 28, 1989 entered into a sales contract with the non-party 1 to purchase the real estate of this case for which ownership transfer registration is made in the above defendant's name; the defendant 2 disposing of the land of this case on or around July 1989 to the non-party 2 who had engaged in real estate presentation business, and requested the introduction of a building with a lot of monthly rent between 400 million and 500 million in order to purchase other real estate, and the previous request for the transfer of the land again was cancelled. The above defendant presented a sales contract on the real estate of this case to the above non-party 1 on September 18, 1989, and it cannot be seen that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts of the provisional registration No. 1,500,000, or misunderstanding the plaintiffs' right to purchase the real estate of this case on behalf of the defendant 2, and it cannot be found that the court below erred in its conclusion.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In comparison with relevant evidence, the fact-finding by the court below that rejected Defendant 2's assertion that the real estate in this case was owned by Defendant 2 and trusted by only the owner to Defendant 1, his husband, is justified, and the judgment below did not err in the rules of evidence as it did not contain any errors in the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason for the conclusion

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

As long as the court below determined that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 implicitly ratified the agreement as the same as the theory of lawsuit, when concluding the instant sales contract with the Plaintiffs, Defendant 2’s assertion that Defendant 2 cannot be deemed as ratification of such agreement since it did not have any contact with the Plaintiffs, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of omission of the judgment of the court below, even if it did not make a separate judgment as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

4. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

As long as the court below rejected that the sales contract of this case was a juristic act contrary to social order or an unfair juristic act without any grounds for defense of the defendants, the court below did not explain the same matters as the theory, and there is no violation of law by neglecting the exercise of the right of explanation in the judgment below, and therefore there is no reason for discussing the issue.

5. Determination on the above grounds of appeal Nos. 5 and 6

According to relevant evidence and records, the court below's rejection of the defendants' assertion that the sales contract of this case is an unfair juristic act or a declaration of intent by fraud or a declaration of intent by mistake shall not be deemed to have violated the rules of evidence or erred by mistake of legal interpretation, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there

6. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 7

The theory of lawsuit is nothing more than criticism that the judgment of the court below is unlawful on the premise that the Defendants did not claim at the fact-finding court (the fact that the sales contract of this case is the broker that the Plaintiff 2 runs the business of buying and selling the object of brokerage under Article 3 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act) and that the judgment of the court below is illegal. Thus, there is

7. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 8

According to relevant evidence and records, the court below's decision that held that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff 1 had expressed his/her intent to waive the rights of the purchaser under the contract of this case against the defendants does not constitute an unlawful violation of the rules of evidence without making a proper deliberation like the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss the case.

8. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 9

It is clear that Defendant 1’s legal representative stated on April 2, 1991 in the court below’s fourth date for pleading that this case’s sales contract was concluded without reporting the contract of land, etc. as stipulated in Article 21-7(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of National Territory, and thus null and void is not indicated. Thus, it is not acceptable to argue that the court below’s judgment was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle on the premise that Defendant 2 passed through the preparatory document and gave rise to such defense.

9. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 10

The court below held that when the plaintiffs apply for the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate of this case according to the contract of this case, the transaction contract certificate issued by the head of the competent Gu according to the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory shall be attached. However, since the plaintiffs failed to obtain such certificate, the contract of this case is impossible to execute the contract of this case, and the defendant 1 is not exempted from the obligation to perform the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the contract of this case. In light of the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error of law such as the theory

10. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)