All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant C are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where a land transaction contract was concluded within the designated period without obtaining permission for land transaction with respect to the land within the permitted area during the designated period for the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, and the cancellation, etc. of such designation becomes conclusive without obtaining permission for land transaction from the competent administrative agency; however, the same shall not apply where the relevant land transaction contract was finally invalidated before the revocation of designation as the permitted area (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da83227, May 17, 2002). Where the land within the land transaction permitted area was transferred for sale for the purpose of obtaining gains from resale under an agreement on intermediate omission registration with the intention to obtain gains from transfer of ownership without obtaining permission for land transaction, each of such sales contracts is null and void as a contract with the intention to exclude or avoid the permission for land transaction

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da3982 delivered on June 28, 1996. The court below acknowledged that E had no intent to meet the requirements for permission of land transaction with respect to the forest of this case, and purchased shares for the purpose of resale profit by means of investment solicitation by Defendant C, E, etc., and there was an agreement between Defendant C, E, and Defendant B, and that E had not sold the instant shares to Defendant B in fact.

In addition, based on the aforementioned facts acknowledged, the lower court determined that the sales contract between Defendant C and E was concluded to exclude land transaction permission from the beginning, and accordingly, the said sales contract was finally invalidated before the cancellation of designation as an area subject to permission of land transaction contract for the instant forest land.

Examining the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier.

In doing so, the court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations.