If double selling of real estate is actively involved in the seller's breach of trust, it is invalid as an anti-social legal act.

If double selling of real estate takes place by the buyer's active participation in the seller's breach of trust, it shall be null and void as anti-social legal act.

Article 103 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1565 Decided November 25, 1969

Plaintiff

Mayang-gun

Masan Support in the first instance, Daegu High Court Decision 69Na633 delivered on August 4, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's agent are examined.

1. The records examined the contents of each evidence adopted by the original judgment based on the records, and the judgment was based on the reasons stated in the former part of the lawsuit, and the non-party 1 was not entitled to the registration of ownership transfer due to the purchase from the non-party 1, who was the deceased non-party 2. The non-party 2 had been aware of the above facts that the non-party 1 had been in violation of the law as to the non-party 2's possession and use of the land as the site for which the non-party 1 had been in violation of the law since the non-party 1 purchased from the non-party 10,000 won on July 10, 1959 and the non-party 2 had been in violation of the law as to the non-party 1's possession and the non-party 3 had been in violation of the law as to the non-party 2's possession and sale of the land for which the non-party 2 had been in violation of the law as to the non-party 1's ownership transfer.

2. In addition, as the original judgment acknowledged the above facts, it cannot be said that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, even if the court below concluded that the sale was an anti-social juristic act violating social justice and was null and void under Article 103 of the Civil Code, as it did not contain any misapprehension of the legal principles as set out in the theory of lawsuit (the above judgment did not state the purport that the site in dispute was used as the pre-construction network around November 1, 1987, and that the site in dispute was used as the pre-construction network for the defendant's possession) as to the facts related to the facts, which led to double purchase of the site from the non-party 2.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu