[1] The validity of a contract for sale without a land transaction permit under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (exclusive invalidation)

[2] If a sales contract’s flexible invalidation becomes final and conclusive, a claim for return of unjust enrichment against a down payment, etc. (negative) and where the contract relationship becomes final and conclusive

[3] The validity of a contract where the contracting parties to the contract entered into a separate contract on the return of the purchase price already paid under a final and conclusive invalid contract (effective)

[1] The sales contract which was concluded before obtaining permission from the competent authority on the land within the land transaction permission area under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory shall be null and void until the permission is granted. However, if the contract is a contract based on the premise that the permission is granted, it shall not be deemed null and void until the permission is granted. However, if the contract is a contract based on the premise that the contract is a legally complete juristic act and the contract on the transfer of rights such as ownership does not take effect at all, the contract shall be deemed null and void retroactively, but if the permission is granted, the contract shall become null and void retroactively, and if the permission is granted otherwise, the contract shall be deemed null and void, and shall be deemed null and void until the permission is granted. Therefore, the parties shall be

[2] In a case where a sales contract is in a flexible invalidation due to a land transaction permit under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the contract deposit, etc. voluntarily paid by the purchaser may not be claimed as unjust enrichment as long as the contract becomes null and void, and only when the passive invalidation becomes final and conclusive, it may be claimed as unjust enrichment. However, such a contract in a flexible invalidation state as well as when there is a non-permission disposition by the competent Do governor and both parties clearly express their intent to refuse the performance of the duty to cooperate, it cannot be deemed that the previous contract relationship, that is, the flexible invalidation state of the contract, is no longer continued, and the contract relationship becomes final and conclusive.

[3] In a case where a sales contract in a state of flexible invalidation without permission for land transaction is finally null and void, and a contract is made with a content different from a return of unjust enrichment under the Civil Act with respect to the return of the purchase price already paid by the parties, it is valid as a separate contract from a invalid contract. As such, the scope of the amount to be refunded out of the purchase price already paid under the invalid contract shall be governed by the new terms

[1] Article 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory / [2] Article 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Articles 568 and 741 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Articles

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da41316 delivered on August 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2740), Supreme Court Decision 93Da26397 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 195Sang, 1950), Supreme Court Decision 95Da54501 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2340) / [1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da1243 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong192, 642), Supreme Court Decision 93Da59526 delivered on December 26, 195 (Gong196, 1995Ha, 295Da296395 delivered on May 26, 195) / [36, 1995Ha decided on June 5, 19965

Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon Ho-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Sung-nam, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 95Na3787 delivered on June 20, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal together with the supplementary document.

1. On the first ground for appeal

가. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 거시 증거에 의하여 피고는 1990. 4. 19. 소외인과 사이에, 국토이용관리법상 토지거래규제지역으로 지정되어 있었던 피고 소유의 마산시 회원구 (주소 생략) 대 108평(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)을 대금 561,600,000원에 매도하기로 하는 매매계약을 체결하면서, 계약금 60,000,000원은 계약 당일에, 중도금 150,000,000원은 같은 해 5. 10.에, 잔대금 351,600,000원은 같은 해 6. 10.에 각 지급하되, 매수인이 위약한 경우에는 계약금 반환청구를 하지 않기로 약정하고, 당일 계약금 60,000,000원, 같은 해 5. 10.경 중도금 150,000,000원, 합계 금 210,000,000원을 위 소외인으로부터 지급받았는데, 위 소외인이 잔금 351,600,000원을 그 지급기일인 같은 해 6. 10. 지급하지 못한 상태에서 같은 해 9. 2.경 이 사건 부동산에 대한 공시지가가 상승되자, 피고는 같은 해 9. 2.경 공시지가의 상승으로 인하여 양도소득세가 금 130,000,000여 원 더 나오게 되었다고 하면서 이 금액 역시 매수인인 위 소외인이 부담하여야 한다고 주장하는 등 피고와 위 소외인 사이에 잔금 미지급으로 인한 분쟁이 있었던 사실, 한편 피고는 위 소외인이 계속 잔금지급을 지체하자 1991. 7. 11. 위 소외인에게, 잔금지급채무의 불이행을 이유로 매매계약을 해제하며 계약 조항에 따라 계약금은 반환할 수 없음은 물론 매수인측의 채무불이행으로 인하여 양도소득세를 추가로 부담하는 등 금 131,079,740원의 손해를 입게 되었으므로 이를 중도금에서 상계한다는 취지의 통고서를 보내어 그 무렵 위 소외인에게 도달되었는데, 위 소외인은 매매계약을 해제한다면 중도금으로 지급된 돈은 전액 반환되어야 한다고 주장하는 등 다툼이 있어 오다가 1992. 1. 17.에 이르러 피고와 위 소외인은 최종적으로 매매계약을 해제하기로 합의하면서, 피고가 지급받은 계약금 및 중도금 합계 금 210,000,000원 중, 계약금 60,000,000원은 당초의 약정에 따른 위약금으로, 중도금 중 금 50,000,000원은 피고가 장차 이 사건 부동산을 매도할 경우 1990. 9. 2.자의 공시지가 상승으로 인하여 소외인에게 당초의 계약대로 양도하였을 경우보다 금 130,000,000여 원의 양도소득세를 더 부담하게 된 데에 대한 손해배상조로 각 공제한 나머지 금 100,000,000원을 반환하기로 약정한 사실을 인정한 다음, 이 사건 부동산에 관한 피고와 위 소외인 사이의 매매계약은 당사자 쌍방이 허가신청을 하지 않을 의사를 명백히 함으로써 확정적으로 무효가 되었으므로 피고가 수령한 계약금 및 중도금 등 합계 금 210,000,000원은 모두 법률상 원인 없이 지급받은 셈이 되어 피고는 그 전액을 반환할 의무가 있다고 하는 그 반환채권의 전부채권자인 원고의 주장에 대하여, 이 사건 부동산은 국토이용관리법상 규제지역 내에 있는 토지로 이에 대한 거래계약은 관할 관청의 허가를 받아야만 그 효력이 발생하고 허가를 받기 전에는 법률상 미완성의 법률행위로 이른바 유동적 무효의 상태에 있을 뿐이라 할 것인데, 피고가 위 소외인의 잔금지급 지체를 이유로 해제를 통보하는 등 다툼이 있어 오다가 1992. 1. 17.에 이르러 매매계약을 합의해제함으로써 피고와 위 소외인은 허가신청을 하지 않을 의사를 명백히 하였다 할 것이고, 이로써 피고와 소외인 사이의 이 사건 부동산에 관한 매매계약은 확정적으로 무효가 되었다 할 것이며, 나아가 국토이용관리법상 허가대상 토지에 대한 매매계약이 확정적으로 무효가 된 경우 거래 당사자는 허가받지 아니하고 체결한 매매계약에 따라 매도인에게 지급된 금원의 반환 등 계약관계의 청산에 관하여 별도의 약정을 유효하게 할 수 있다고 할 것이므로 피고와 위 소외인은 위 1992. 1. 17.자 합의해제 약정으로 이 사건 부동산에 관한 매매계약이 확정적으로 무효가 됨에 따라 허가받지 아니한 상태에서 지급받은 금 210,000,000원 중 금 100,000,000원을 반환하는 것으로서 금전반환을 둘러싼 계약관계를 청산하기로 하였다 할 것이어서, 피고가 이 사건 부동산에 관한 매매계약의 무효로 인하여 소외인에게 반환하여야 할 계약금 및 중도금은 위 인정의 금 100,000,000원이라 할 것이라고 판단하였다.

B. A contract concluded before obtaining permission from the competent authority on land within a zone subject to land transaction permission under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory does not have room for becoming effective as a final and conclusive invalidation if it is a contract with the purport of excluding or evading the above permission from the beginning. However, in the case of a contract based on the premise that permission is to be granted, the above conclusive invalidation is not different from the case of the above conclusive invalidation, but once permission is granted, the contract becomes effective retroactively, and if permission is non-permission becomes final and conclusive, it shall be deemed as null and void, and the parties have a duty to cooperate with one another to ensure that the contract becomes effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da1243, Dec. 24, 1991; 90Da124696, Dec. 24, 199). 209, the above contract cannot be deemed null and void as being declared null and void, and thus, it cannot be deemed null and void at the same time when it becomes final and void.

Meanwhile, in a case where a contract in a state of flexible invalidation is finally null and void and a contract is entered into with respect to the return of the purchase price already paid by the parties, which is different from the return of unjust enrichment under the Civil Act, it shall be deemed valid as a separate contract from the invalid contract. As such, the scope of the amount to be refunded out of the purchase price already paid under the invalid contract shall be governed by the new contract between the parties

C. According to the records, on April 19, 190 between the defendant and the above non-party, a sales contract was concluded as to the real estate in this case, which was designated as a land transaction regulation area under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory. On July 11, 1991, the defendant unilaterally expresses his intention to cancel the above sales contract on the ground of the non-party's default of the obligation to pay residual payments, and thus, he cannot refund the down payment because the non-party violated the above non-party's contract, as well as he incurred damages of KRW 131,079,740 due to the non-party's default of the above non-party's obligation to pay the intermediate payment. The above non-party's notification of cancellation is null and void since it was against the defendant's obligation to pay the remaining payment date under the agreement of the non-party, and it is also deemed that the non-party's notification of cancellation of the sales contract should be returned to the defendant on the ground that the non-party's claim for the return of the down payment.

However, according to the records, when the defendant and the above non-party agreed on January 17, 1992 to cancel the sales contract finally, 60,000 won of the down payment and the intermediate payment paid by the defendant as penalty; 50,000,000 won of the intermediate payment as penalty; and 130,000,000 won of the intermediate payment in the event the defendant sells the real estate of this case to the above non-party, due to the increase in the officially announced value of September 2, 1990, the above non-party sold the real estate of this case to the above non-party as the original contract; and the remaining amount of 1,100,000,000 won was deducted as compensation for damages to the above non-party; and even if the sales contract of this case was made on August 1, 199, the contract of this case and the non-party had already been invalidated under the agreement to return the above non-party's agreement to the above non-party as invalid.

Therefore, the contract deposit and intermediate payment to be returned to the above non-party due to the final invalidation of the contract of this case's real estate becomes final and conclusive, shall be KRW 100,000,000 by a new agreement between the above parties, and the court below is justified in its conclusion because it decided to the same purport as to the scope of the contract deposit and intermediate payment to be returned to the defendant, and the error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the time when the contract of this case was finally null and void is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant paid KRW 100,00,000 to the above non-party under the above agreement on January 17, 1992 between the above non-party and the non-party, after deducting KRW 28,00,000 from the amount of the existing debt owed to the above non-party, the non-party shall be paid KRW 72,00,000. Accordingly, the court below held that the above non-party's assignment order was null and void due to the comparison of the facts that the non-party was paid to the above non-party on January 17, 1992, and that the non-party was not in violation of the rules of evidence, since all of the records of the real estate sale contract and the non-party's assignment order were null and void.

In conclusion, we cannot accept this issue merely because it causes the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the lower court's full power as fact-finding court.

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)