(a) The meaning of “the act of entering into a contract for land, etc. without permission” under Article 31-2 of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the violation of Articles 31-2 and 21-3 (1) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory on the ground that it is unclear whether the contracting parties to a contract have entered into a contract to exclude or lock a land transaction permit from the beginning by any

A. The term "the act of entering into a contract for land, etc. without permission" subject to punishment under Article 31-2 (1) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 1993) refers to the act of entering into a contract for the purpose of excluding or evading permission under Article 21-3 (1) of the same Act from the beginning, and it does not constitute an act of entering into a contract on the premise of obtaining permission.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the violation of Articles 31-2 and 21-3(1) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory on the ground that it is unclear whether the parties to a contract enter into a contract for the purpose of excluding or avoiding a land transaction permit from the beginning by any method

Articles 31-2 and 21-3(1) of the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572 of August 5, 1993)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,642) 92Do1240 delivered on August 18, 1992 (Gong192,2797)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 93No8514 delivered on June 7, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

1. On the first and second points

The judgment of the court of first instance of this case acknowledged that the Defendants concluded a sale contract with the non-indicted 2,40,000 won for the forest land and site located in the 190-10-dong, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, 1992 in collusion with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do without obtaining the land transaction permission of the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, and concluded a sale contract without obtaining the land transaction permission until December 17 of this year. Accordingly, the Defendants concluded a sale contract with the owner of the non-indicted 2,40,000 square meters for the forest and site located in the 2,784 square meters in the 199-10-dong, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul. The court of first instance concluded a sale contract with the owner of the non-indicted 2,400,000,000 won and received the full purchase price until December 17, 1993.

2. However, the phrase “the act of entering into a contract for land, etc. without permission” under Article 32-2 through Article 32-1 of the above Act prior to the above amendment refers to the act of entering into a contract without permission from the beginning, which excludes permission under Article 21-3(1) of the above Act, and it does not fall under the act of entering into a contract under the premise that permission should be granted (the above en banc Decision 90Da1243 delivered on December 24, 191; 91Do2912 delivered on January 21, 192; 92Do1240 delivered on August 28, 192; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do1240 delivered on August 28, 192). The facts of the recognition of the first instance court alone are that the Defendants were unable to enter into a contract with the public official under the premise that they would not have any specific way to get permission from the public official under Article 21-3(1).

Therefore, in order to punish the Defendants against the violation of Articles 31-2 and 21-3 (1) of the above Act prior to the amendment, the court below should deliberate and confirm whether the terms of the contract entered into with the above electric power source and whether this constitutes a contract for the exclusion or evasion of permission from the beginning. However, the court below did not reach such a conclusion, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and the grounds for appeal

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)