[1] The validity of the ownership transfer registration, which was made by the final buyer with the land transaction permission granted to him/her as a party to the first sale under an agreement between the intermediate omission registration and the land transaction permission granted by the final buyer without any land transaction permission (negative)

[2] Whether a person who violates 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 that the contract is null and void (negative)

[1] If the land within the land transaction permission zone was sold to the intermediate buyer from the first buyer who is the owner without a land transaction permission, and again from the last buyer, the parties to each contract should obtain a land transaction permission regarding each of the respective sales contracts. Even if there was an agreement between the said parties on the middle omission registration to directly conduct a registration of ownership transfer in the future of the final buyer, such agreement on the interim omission registration is merely merely an agreement between the parties that the first buyer should conduct a registration of ownership transfer in the future of the final buyer from the first seller on the convenience of performance, on the premise that each sale of the real estate was effective. Since such agreement did not mean that the sales contract was concluded between the first seller and the final buyer, it cannot be deemed that the sales contract was concluded between the first seller and the final buyer, and even if the last buyer had completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future with a land transaction permission between himself and the first seller as a party to the first sale, it is null and void as a registration completed without a legitimate

[2] If a person who violated 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, refuses to assert invalidation on the ground that he/she is an exercise of a right in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, the legislative intent of the same Act would be completely dismissed. Thus, in cases where a transaction application is filed with the competent authority for permission for land transaction as agreed upon between the parties to the transaction and the purpose of acquisition, the application can be obtained in conformity with the criteria for permission under the same Act, but it is not against the principle of trust and good faith, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the application was avoided due

[1] 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 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 2 of the Civil Act; 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)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da3982 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2344), Supreme Court Decision 96Da7762 delivered on July 26, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2600), Supreme Court Decision 96Da22464 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1081) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da44319, 44326 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 505) Supreme Court Decision 94Da20532 delivered on November 21, 195 (Gong196Sang, 196Sang, 397Da19697 delivered on September 16, 197)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Park Jong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Large General Construction Co., Ltd. (former Trade Name: Large Forest Development Co., Ltd.) (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 94Da40147 Decided July 14, 1995

Supreme Court Decision 96Da22464 Delivered on March 14, 1997

Jeju District Court Decision 97Na492 delivered on June 19, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

1. The court below acknowledged that the land of this case within the land transaction permission zone was sold in sequential order from the plaintiff and the non-party again to the defendant. The plaintiff and the non-party should obtain land transaction permission from the plaintiff, the non-party as the purchaser, and the above non-party and the defendant should obtain land transaction permission from the seller and the defendant as the purchaser. The above non-party and the defendant should obtain the above non-party's land transaction permission. Even if there was an agreement between the above parties that the plaintiff, the first seller, would directly complete the registration of transfer of ownership between the defendant and the defendant, the final buyer, the agreement on the interim omission registration is merely merely an agreement between the parties that the first seller would have completed the registration of transfer of ownership from the final buyer for the convenience of the execution, on the premise that each contract of transfer of real estate is valid, and it does not mean that the first seller and the final buyer have concluded the sale contract. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and even if the defendant obtained such permission and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the defendant's future.

The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the purport of the second return judgment of the party members, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles regarding land transaction permission under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason

2. The legislative intent 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, would completely be eliminated if the violator voluntarily denies the legislative intent of the same Act if he/she rejects an application for permission for land transaction in violation of 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) on the ground that it is an exercise of rights in violation of the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, in cases where the party to the transaction has filed an application for permission for land transaction with the competent authority in accordance with the contents of the agreement and the purpose of acquisition between the parties, the application can be granted permission in conformity with the criteria for permission under the same Act, but it is not in violation of the principle of trust and good faith (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da39196, Feb. 28, 1997

Even if the Plaintiff is liable to implement the procedure for filing an application for land transaction permission with the Nonparty, insofar as the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendant without a legitimate land transaction permission between the Defendant and the Defendant, the Plaintiff may assert the invalidity of the above ownership transfer registration. Therefore, there is no reason to argue that such assertion violates the good faith principle or constitutes an abuse

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

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)