Acquisition of land ownership by foreigners and permission of the Minister of National Defense

According to the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act (repealed by Act No. 4726 of Jan. 7, 94) and the Enforcement Decree thereof, it is clear that the permission of the Minister of National Defense is about the acquisition of land ownership in the restricted area for foreigners and it is not a requirement for establishing a land sales

Article 5 of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Associate-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2332 delivered on July 20, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the defendant's agent are examined.

However, according to the Foreigner's Land Act and its enforcement decree, the permission of the Minister of National Defense is about foreigner's acquisition of land ownership in the restricted zone, and it is apparent that the foreigner's acquisition of land ownership in the restricted zone is not the requirement for establishment of the contract, and the original judgment does not recognize the subsequent completion after the requirements for establishment of the contract, and the final judgment is justified as determined by the court below, and the final judgment of No. 4 and No. 5 of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant should be obtained from the Minister of National Defense, and the plaintiff must obtain permission from the Minister of National Defense, and the plaintiff must cancel the registration of ownership transfer as to the land of this case without permission, and the final judgment of No. 3 is only dismissed for the plaintiff's claim for damages caused by the defendant's tort, and all of the final judgment of No. 3 does not have res judicata effect as to the validity of the contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant's father and the non-party, and since the final judgment was cancelled after the registration of ownership transfer as the plaintiff's name, it cannot be viewed nor can be justified.

The third ground of appeal is examined.

However, as shown in the above, the final judgment of No. 3 was rejected by the defendant's claim that the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages caused by tort, and there is no res judicata as to the validity of the original land sale contract between the plaintiff and the deceased non-party, and according to the original judgment, according to the original judgment, the court below recognized that there was a land sale contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and the deceased non-party by the evidence No. 2, and there is no assertion that the contract has been terminated later, and there is no proof of assertion that the obligation under the contract has currently been terminated, and there is no trace of the plaintiff's obligation under the contract.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu