[1] Whether Article 25 (1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory violates the purpose of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory or goes beyond the limits of delegation

[2] The criteria for determining the unit area of transaction to distinguish whether the land is subject to land transaction permission or is subject to reporting in the case of concluding a contract for the land of several parcels within the regulation zone under the Act on the

[3] In a case where a land transaction report was filed by dividing the individual parcel into several parcels with a view to evading a land transaction permit, whether the competent authority shall demand the parties to file an application for permission for land transaction

[4] Whether a person who violated Article 21-3 (1) and (7) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory violates the principle of good faith to assert invalidation of a contract

[1] Article 25 (1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13422 of July 4, 1991) are based on delegation of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4572 of August 5, 1993), and it cannot be deemed that it violates its purport or goes beyond the limits of delegation.

[2] In a case where the same party intends to enter into a sale contract on the land of several lots within the regulation zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the transaction unit that simply distinguishs the transaction subject to permission or permission shall not be determined by parcel according to the area of each parcel, but shall be determined by the total area of the parcel of land in a case where the whole parcel of land appears to be the object of a sale contract, taking into comprehensive account the geographical closeness and utilization status of the target parcel of land, economic purpose of the transaction concerned, and method of determining the price, etc.

[3] In a case where a party intentionally divided a parcel into several lots with a view to evading permission for land transaction under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and filed a land transaction report, the competent authority does not require the parties to file an application for permission for land transaction and the parties to file an application for permission for land transaction do not require the procedure to notify that the contract is null and void.

[4] The purpose of Article 21-2(1), Article 21-3(1) and (7), and Article 21-4 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 1993), and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1342 of Jul. 4, 191), is to grant permission after examining whether a land transaction between individuals in a regulated area conflicts with the purpose of preventing speculative transactions under the same Act, and to prevent the effect of a contract under the restraint of the parties without such permission. Thus, if a person violates Article 21-3(1) and (7) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 1993), which is a mandatory law, rejects the claim for invalidity of the contract on the grounds that he/she is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, it does not go against the principle of trust.

[1] Article 21-3 (1), (2), and (8) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 1993), Article 25 (1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1342 of Jul. 4, 1991) / [2] Article 21-3 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 1993), Article 25 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory / [3] Article 21-3 of the former Act on the Management and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 1993), Article 25 (1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Presidential Decree No. 251325 of the Act)

[2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Da41316 delivered on August 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2740) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 93Da44319, 44326 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 505) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Da4806 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 658), Supreme Court Decision 95Da2487 delivered on June 9, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2381) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 68Da1323 delivered on September 6, 1968 (Gong163-163, 199)

Jeon-soo et al. (Attorney Jeong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Development exchange et al. (Attorneys Ra Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na43205 delivered on February 18, 1994

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant creation exchange as to real estate listed in the annexed Table 4 of the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All of the appeals by Defendant Kim Young-young, Defendant Cho Young-chul, Defendant Cho Jae-soo, Defendant Choi Jong-sung, Defendant Cho Jong-sung, and Defendant Cho Young-chul and the remaining appeals by Defendant Cho Young-chul are dismissed, and the costs of appeal regarding the dismissed part

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

1. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 1 by the attorney of the defendant Kim Young-young, the defendant Cho Young-chul, the defendant Choi Jae-hwan, the defendant Cho Young-chul, and the defendant Cho Young-chul (hereinafter the defendant Kim Young-chul et al.).

According to Article 21-3(1) and (2) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572, Aug. 5, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply), where a contract for land, etc. is intended to be concluded within a regulatory zone designated under Article 21-2(1) of the same Act, permission from the competent Do Governor shall be obtained, but when a contract for land, etc. is concluded within a specific use as determined by the Presidential Decree comprehensively taking into account the trend of general economy and land prices, unit area of transaction, etc., the report shall be made to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu after entering into the contract. Article 21-3(8) of the same Act delegates matters necessary for the method of calculating such land area to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu. Accordingly, since Article 25(1) through 25(2) of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13422, Jul. 4, 191; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides for the entire purport of the land within one-year.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the grounds of appeal No. 1 as to Defendant Kim Young-chul et al.

In light of the purpose of Articles 21-3(1) and (2), 21-2(1), 25(3), and 25(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, where the same party intends to enter into a sales contract on the land of a lot located within the regulation zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the transaction unit area which distinguishess whether the sale is subject to land transaction permission under the same Act or simply distinguishings the subject of report is not determined by lot depending on the area of each lot, but rather on the basis of the total area of the lot of land if the whole lot of land is considered as the subject matter of a sales contract, such as geographical closeness and use status of the target land, economic purpose of the transaction, and method of determining the price, etc. In addition, even if the buyer or multiple seller is determined on the basis of the area of the land itself, it should not be determined on the basis of area per trading party (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da41316, Aug. 14, 1993).

According to the records, since the area where the real estate is located in the attached list 1 and 2 of the judgment below (hereinafter in this case, real estate 1 and 2) is designated as a regulatory zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the area was subject to permission from the Do Governor for the land transaction exceeding 30 square meters. Two real estate lots in this case were adjacent to each other, and the sale contract was concluded as a single contract, and the purchase price was determined in a lump sum without distinction of the lots. The original number of the plaintiffs in this case was first and second real estate as co-defendants in the court below for the purpose of destroying the buildings in this case and constructing a new building, and the above co-defendants in this case were selected as the above co-defendants in the above land transaction contract to the effect that the above co-defendants in the court below did not submit the land transaction application procedure to the above co-defendants in light of the fact that the above co-defendants in the court below did not have any specific land transaction application procedure to new construction as above, it is reasonable in light of the empirical rule that the above co-defendants in this case's are not subject to the above two lots.

On the other hand, the sales contract concluded before obtaining permission from the competent Do Governor for the land within the regulatory zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory shall be null and void in the case of the contract with the intention to exclude or avoid the above permission. On the other hand, even if the contract is based on the premise that permission is granted, it shall not have the effect of the contract with respect to the transfer of ownership, etc. as a legal act

3. We examine the ground of appeal No. 4 by the attorney of defendant Kim Young-chul et al.

The purpose of Article 21-2(1), Article 21-3(1) and (7), and Article 21-4 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, is to examine whether a land transaction between individuals in a regulated area conflicts with the purpose of preventing speculative transactions under the above Act, and to prohibit the validity of a contract under restraint by the parties without such permission. If a person violates Article 21-3(1) and (7) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and the Management of the National Territory and the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and the Act on the Management of the National Territory and the Act on the Management of the National Territory and the Act on the Management of the National Territory and the Act on the Management of the National Territory and the Act on the Management of the National Territory and the Act on the Management of the National Territory, such assertion cannot be deemed to violate the principle of trust.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss the claim of this case on the premise that the claim of this case by the plaintiff Jeon Soo-chul violated the principle of good faith in this case, which does not peep with special circumstances.

4. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 5 and 6 by Defendant Kim Young-chul et al.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although each of the above joint defendants' registrations of ownership transfer, which was made in the first and second real estate and third real estate listed in the attached list No. 3 of the judgment of the court below (hereinafter "third real estate of this case"), is invalid, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the above contract of this case was cancelled, so long as the ownership was already transferred in the name of the plaintiff Jeon-soo, it cannot prejudice the rights of defendant Kim Young-young, a third party in good faith, as well as that of the above joint defendants' cancellation, and that the number of the plaintiff Jeon Young-young should be deemed to have ratified the registration of ownership transfer in the above court's first and second real estate of this case for reasons of cancellation of contract on March 15, 191 and March 10 of the same year, it cannot be seen that the above contract of this case was null and void for the reason that the above joint defendants' registration of ownership transfer was not made in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

In addition, with respect to the real estate Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of this case, the plaintiff Jeon Soo-soo knew that the establishment registration of a new establishment in the name of defendant Kim Young-chul was completed, and he accepted it, and completed a provisional registration in his name. Since the ownership transfer registration was completed on the grounds of the cancellation of the subsequent sale contract, the claim that the effect of the establishment registration of a new establishment of a new establishment in the name of the above defendants should be recognized or ratified is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, all arguments are without merit.

5. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the attorney of Defendant Formation Exchange.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, on April 12, 1991, the lower court: (a) on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the mother of the Plaintiff, who established the right to collateral security on behalf of the Plaintiff on April 12, 1991, issued a certificate of the Plaintiff, a seal imprint, etc. under the name of the Plaintiff on the deposit basis of the attached Table 4 of the lower judgment; (b) by deceiving the said Red dong to arrange for the loan; and (c) on April 15, 1991, the lower court determined that the Defendants, who established the right to collateral security agreement on the above real estate, had a signature imprint, etc. under the name of the Plaintiff on the deposit basis of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the right to collateral security agreement, signed the agreement on the establishment of the right to collateral security on the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the right to collateral security agreement, and signed the agreement on the establishment of the right to collateral security on the 19th anniversary of the establishment of the right to collateral security agreement, which was signed and sealed on the 1914th of the title.

However, there are statements on the above Hongdong and on the plaintiff Jeon-dong, each of the evidences that can be recognized that the above Hongdong, by deceiving the above co-defendants of the court below and issued the above seal impression certificate and the certificate of seal impression. The above statements on the plaintiff Jeon-dong are merely statements from the above Hongdong and therefore the credibility of the above Hongdong's statement is problematic. The above Hongdong is a person who was closely related to the above Hongdong, such as managing the plaintiff Jeon-dong's property, and is in the opposite position to the above co-defendants of the court below, and thus it is not easy to believe such statements.

In addition, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below and evidence such as Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 4, and 17-2, Gap evidence Nos. 22-8, 9, etc., the total number of plaintiffs was sold to the above co-defendant 3,00,000 won on April 16, 1991, and the down payment 2,750,000 won was paid to the above co-defendant 10,000 won and the remaining 2,750,000 won was first given to the above co-defendant 40,000 won was delivered to the above co-defendant 10,000,000 won was delivered to the above co-defendant 10,000 won, and the above co-defendant 40,000 won was delivered to the above co-defendant 10,000 won was delivered on July 15, 191, and the above co-defendant 200,000 won was delivered on the first real property.

In light of the above circumstances, the above Hongdong issued the above co-defendant a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression for establishment with the consent of the present number of plaintiffs on the 4 real estate of this case with respect to the above 4 real estate under the agreement of the above sales contract.

Therefore, the court below should further examine whether the above co-defendants of the court below received the above certificate of the personal seal impression from Hongdong or not, the circumstance leading up to the conclusion of each contract to establish the above right to collateral, and the attitude of the plaintiff's previous signature impression in the process of returning the plaintiff's previous seal impression, whether the amount of KRW 300,000 received through the above Hongdong was paid from the above co-defendants of the court below, and whether the above money was paid as part of the purchase price, such as the down payment of the above contract, and whether the above money was paid as part of the purchase price. The court below should have confirmed whether the number of the plaintiff's previous co-defendants of the court below's above co-defendants of the court below's above contract to establish the above right to collateral security, and should have determined the legitimacy of the claim before the plaintiff's previous co-defendant's previous co-defendants of the court below's claim for the above right to collateral security, but it can be justified in this regard, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

6. Meanwhile, Defendant Kim Young-young or his attorney does not present any grounds of appeal against the judgment below on the instant 4 real estate, and thus, the appeal against this cannot be accepted.

7. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 as to the instant real estate No. 4 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining Defendants’ appeal and the remaining appeal against Defendant 1 are dismissed. The costs of appeal as to the dismissed part are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)