beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by the court of this case to add 2.2. Additional determination, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Additional determination
A. The sales contract on the instant real estate concluded on October 5, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was null and void by an anti-social legal act as it constitutes double selling by the Defendant’s active participation in the Defendant’s breach of trust. Even if the above sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is valid, it is a sales contract that can be rescinded upon the Plaintiff’s winning in the instant lawsuit based on a condition subsequent.
Therefore, since the Defendant’s recovery of ownership of the instant real estate from BC and transfer it to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff is not impossible.
B. In a case where the owner of any real estate in the relevant legal doctrine bears the duty of transfer of ownership over the same real estate by selling it to a third party by concluding a sale or other contract which causes the transfer of ownership, and as a result, performing such duty, it is contrary to the duty of transfer to the first transferor creditor, but if the owner disposes of the ownership by completing the registration on the transfer of ownership in the future of the third party, the contract, such as sale, which causes the owner’s duty of transfer of ownership under such second, is not null and void against the public order and good morals merely on the ground that the contract would cause the owner’s breach of duty as above.
If it is intended to be contrary to the public order and good morals, the other party, unless there are other special circumstances, shall also be subject to such nullification;