(a) The meaning of "the act of entering into a contract for land, etc. without permission", which is subject to penal provisions in Article 31-2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management

B. The case holding that the act of concluding a sales contract by the latter constitutes “A” where a part of the price is received by re-sale to another person without paying the purchase price after land purchase.

(a) The term "the act of entering into a contract for land, etc. without permission", which is subject to the penal provisions of Article 31-2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, refers to the act of entering into a contract for the purpose of excluding or evading the permission prescribed in Article 21-3(1) of the same Act from the beginning, and it does not fall under the act of entering into

B. The case holding that, in a case where no permission was obtained from the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory from the time of the purchase of land, and a part of the purchase price is received by the former resale to another person without paying the purchase price after the purchase, the latter sale contract cannot be deemed as a contract under the premise that the permission should be granted from the beginning, in light of the above sale circumstances.

Articles 31-2 and 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,642) (Gong1992,961) Decided January 21, 1992

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Han Woo-man (for the defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91No3063 delivered on November 22, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, it is recognized that the Defendants, by deception of the co-defendants of the court below, purchased the instant real estate as a legitimate agent of the new loan Co-defendants of the court below, and then sold it again to the victim's attitude by the brokerage of the co-defendants of the court below. Thus, even if the Defendants participated in the process of purchasing and resale the instant land, the sales contract between the Defendants cannot be deemed as null and void or non-existent contract like the theory of lawsuit. Thus, there is no reason to discuss this point.

In addition, there is no reason to argue that there is an error of violation of judicial precedents since the party members' precedents on the fraud and gambling cannot be an appropriate precedent in this case.

2. The term "the act of entering into a contract for land, etc. without permission", which is a subject of penal provisions under Article 31-2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, refers to the act of entering into a contract for land, etc. without permission under Article 21-3 (1) of the same Act from the beginning, and it does not correspond to the act of entering into a contract on the premise that permission is granted (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da12243, Dec. 24, 1991). According to the facts and records established by the court below, the defendants do not have to obtain permission under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory from the time of initial purchase of the land in this case, and it is recognized that the defendants receive KRW 1,350,000,000,000 from the purchase price to the non-indicted after the purchase without completing the contract. Thus, the sale contract of the land in this case, which the above defendants entered into, cannot be deemed as a contract under the premise that permission was excluded from the Act from the beginning.

The court below is just in applying Article 31-2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory to the conclusion of the above transaction contract by the defendants, and there is no reason to argue that there is a misapprehension of legal principles

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)