Since a third party who acquired a right to real estate from a purchaser by an expression of intent of fraud can be presumed in good faith, barring any special circumstances, the transferor of real estate who declared intention by fraud should prove the third party's bad faith in order to claim the cancellation of the declaration of intention by fraud to the third party.

Since the third party who acquired the right to real estate from the buyer by the declaration of intention of fraud is presumed in good faith unless there are special circumstances, the transferor of real estate who declared intention by fraud is required to prove the third party's bad faith in order to claim the cancellation of the declaration of intention by fraud to the third party.

Article 110(3) of the Civil Act

Korea

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na2722 delivered on August 21, 1970

The part of the original judgment against Defendant 2 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, those arising from the appeal by Defendant 1 shall be borne by the same defendant.

Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the defendant et al.;

In full view of all the evidence listed in the original judgment, the court below did not err in the measures that recognized the establishment of the sales contract on December 5, 1963 by Defendant 1 deceiving the government authorities and let the government authorities act as the first purchaser under Article 5 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Disposal of State Property and Public Property concerning this land, and there is no error in the law that recognized the establishment of the sales contract on December 5, 1963 between the above parties, and since the above Act on Special Cases was implemented on December 7, 1962, the permission to occupy and use the land of this case against Defendant 1 was reached on August 31, 1962, and there is no ground for appeal that the above Defendant cannot be subject to the free contract under the Act on Special Cases concerning Special Cases concerning the Disposal of State Property and Public Property concerning this case, and there is no ground for appeal that criticizes the legitimate selection of evidence by the court below.

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

It is reasonable to interpret that the transferor of the real estate who acquired the above right to the real estate from the purchaser due to the expression of intent by fraud has the need to prove the third party's bad faith in order to claim the cancellation of the declaration of intent by fraud to the third party, unless there are special circumstances. Nevertheless, the original judgment is reversed on this case under the premise that it is insufficient to prove that Defendant 2, who purchased the real estate from the purchaser due to the expression of intent by fraud, had acted in good faith with regard to the legal act by fraud, and without waiting to prove the effect of cancellation of the declaration of intent by fraud, the original judgment which concluded that Defendant 2, who purchased the real estate from the purchaser due to the expression of intent by fraud, could oppose the effect of cancellation against Defendant 2 without waiting to prove the above bad faith of the plaintiff who asserted the effect of cancellation of the declaration of intent by fraud, and it is obvious that this illegality affected the result

Therefore, the appeal against Defendant 1 among this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in the appeal against Defendant 2.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon