[1] In a case where a judicial compromise is invalidated due to the fulfillment of the conditions of invalidation or revoked by a quasi-adjudication, whether the legal assertion prior to the establishment of the compromise is made (affirmative)

[2] Whether the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act is applicable in a case where a contract to sell forfeited terms and conditions becomes invalidated by the forfeited terms and conditions (affirmative)

[1] In a case where a judicial compromise is invalidated due to the fulfillment of the conditions of invalidation or revoked due to a quasi-adjudication, the legal relationship prior to the conclusion of the compromise may be asserted again, since it returned to the state where

[2] When one of the parties to a contract cancels a contract, the contract shall be terminated retroactively, and the party to the contract shall be obligated to restore to its original state. However, in this case, the legal relationship not compatible with the party claiming the cancellation of the contract before the cancellation of the contract is made and the third party who had known the cancellation of the contract cannot claim the cancellation of the contract. This legal principle is also applicable in a case where the sales contract which is the part of the forfeited contract becomes retroactively invalidated under the forfeited

[1] Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 548 (1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 64Da1514 delivered on March 2, 1965 (Gong13-1, 65), Supreme Court Decision 88Da56056 delivered on August 9, 198 (Gong1988, 1211), Supreme Court Decision 92Da56056 delivered on June 29, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2129) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 84Da130, 131 delivered on April 9, 198 (Gong1985, 716), Supreme Court Decision 91Da2601 delivered on April 12, 191 (Gong191, 1377) (Gong1991, 1377) and Supreme Court Decision 92Da193495 delivered on December 195, 192)

Plaintiff (Attorney Ha-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and four others (Law Firm Dong-gu, Attorney Park Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 93Na2595 delivered on June 16, 1994

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

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records, it is proper that the court below rejected the defendants' defense that the plaintiff's act of filing the lawsuit against the defendants violates the principle of good faith, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending relevant legal principles

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' defense, which corresponds to the effective relation of rights and obligations of the defendants, since the court below held that the judicial compromise made between the non-party and the non-party Green Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party cooperative") shall be deemed null and void when the plaintiff, the actual owner of each real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") recorded in the attached list of the judgment below, raises an objection to the lawsuit of this case. Since it is evident that the plaintiff raised an objection by the lawsuit of this case, the validity of the above reconciliation was invalidated due to the fulfillment of the conditions of invalidation, and thus, based on the above protocol of compromise, it shall be deemed that the validity of the above reconciliation was invalidated by the fulfillment of the conditions of invalidation. Accordingly, the court below rejected the non-party cooperative's defense, which was made in relation to the above non-party's ownership transfer registered in the name of the non-party, 5,634 square meters (name 1 omitted) and 6,482 square meters (hereinafter referred to the land of this case.).

In a case where a judicial compromise becomes void due to the fulfillment of the conditions of invalidation or is revoked due to the quasi-adjudication, the legal relationship prior to the conclusion of the compromise may be asserted again (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da1514, Mar. 2, 1965). In addition, in a case where one of the parties to a contract cancels a contract, the party who terminates the contract retroactively becomes liable to reinstate each other. However, in this case, a legal relationship not compatible with the party claiming the cancellation of the contract before the cancellation of the contract is completed, which is not compatible with the party claiming the cancellation of the contract, can not claim the cancellation of the contract against the third party (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu130, 131, Apr. 9, 1985). This legal principle is deemed to be the same in a case where the contract for the cancellation of the contract becomes retroactively invalidated by the forfeited terms and conditions of forfeiture.

In light of the records, the Plaintiff was liable for the above non-party 1’s total amount of KRW 69,00,000 on April 8, 197 to the non-party 1 for the above non-party 7’s transfer of ownership to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party ownership transfer registration on the ground of the non-party 1’s non-party 7’s non-party 1’s non-party ownership transfer registration on the non-party 1’s non-party 7’s non-party 9, and the non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 7’s non-party 9,000 and the non-party 9’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party ownership transfer registration on the non-party 1’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party title.

On May 26, 1979, the above non-party's obligation to the above non-party is not yet due, and thus the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party is valid by the agreement between the parties concerned. Even if the contract between the plaintiff and the non-party became retroactively null and void pursuant to the effective condition agreement, the above non-party's obligation has already been restored to the plaintiff before the procedure for the registration of cancellation of transfer registration of the land in this case was implemented, since the registration of transfer of ownership had already been completed to the third party, the court below should have reviewed whether the defendants acquired the land in this case with the knowledge that the above contract was null and void pursuant to the effective condition agreement, and then should have judged whether the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendants conform to the substantive relationship. However, the court below rejected the defense that the registration in the name of the defendants is consistent with the substantive relationship without any deliberation and determination, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of cancellation of the contract and did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)