Main Issues
Judicial effects of acts in conflict with restrictions and prohibitions under the Foreign Exchange Control Act;
Summary of Judgment
Since the restriction or prohibition regulations under the Foreign Exchange Control Act are the enforcement regulations, it does not affect the validity of the act in private law even if it is in conflict with them.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 21 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court en banc Decision 72Da2161 Decided April 22, 1975
Plaintiff-Appellant
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
Defendant-Appellee
Defendant 1, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2
Judgment of the lower court
Chuncheon District Court Decision 80Na3 delivered on May 23, 1980
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
As to the Grounds of Appeal:
The restriction and prohibition provisions of the Foreign Exchange Control Act are the excessive restriction regulations to promote the development of the national economy, and therefore, even if an act is in conflict with the above restriction regulations, it does not affect the judicial effect of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da2161 delivered on April 22, 1975), it is a party member's opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da2161 delivered on April 22, 1975);
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, considering that the disposal or acquisition of real estate in violation of the above restriction provisions is invalid, the court below held that the plaintiff, a non-resident, did not obtain the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy when acquiring the land of this case, which is a domestic real estate, and rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff was invalid due to lack of the cause. Thus, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the restriction provisions of the same Act, thereby misunderstanding the application of the substantive law, and it seems that the grounds for appeal of this case are included in the grounds for appeal, and therefore, it is reasonable to reverse the original judgment.
Therefore, the judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal is omitted, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jung-young (Presiding Justice)