Restriction on the acquisition of land by foreigners under the Foreigner's Land Act and subordinate statutes, and the necessity of proof thereof.

Since the existence of laws and regulations is a matter of ex officio detection by the court, it is erroneous in the court below's decision that the land within the area stipulated by the designated district where the acquisition of rights by foreigners is restricted under the Foreigner's Land Law has no proof of the limitation of the acquisition of rights by foreigners.

Article 5 of the former Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act (No. 718, 1961); Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act (Ordinance No. 645, Apr. 10, 1962)

Supreme Court Decision 66Da368 Delivered on June 21, 1966

Plaintiff’s Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendant 1 and 1 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 80Na353 delivered on August 20, 1980

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the land shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The plaintiffs' remaining appeals (which relate to buildings) are dismissed.

The costs of appeal on the dismissed portion shall be borne by the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below is justified. The plaintiff voluntarily acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea with the thickness of 1925, and the fact that the plaintiff has lost the nationality of the Republic of Korea is the plaintiff's own discretion. Accordingly, the defendant 1 asserted that the plaintiff has no permission from the Minister of Home Affairs in acquiring the ownership of the land which is smaller than the order of April 25, 1962, and therefore, the plaintiff has no title to the claim of this case. Thus, according to the evidence No. 1-1 of No. 1 of this case without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having completed the registration of ownership transfer on the above land on the ground of sale on April 25, 1962. According to the provisions of Articles 5 (1) and 5-3 of the current Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act, the foreigner's right to the land is denied without the permission of the Minister of Home Affairs, but the foreigner's right to the land is no longer effective at the time of the enforcement of the Act, and thus the foreigner's right to each of this case cannot be accepted as a public order or a limited public order.

2. The court should detect ex officio the existence of laws and regulations as it originally serves as the position of applying laws and regulations, not the verification of the parties. (See Supreme Court Decision 1955No. 110 Decided January 31, 1956, ruled that the application of laws and regulations on foreigner's land ownership is an ex officio investigation.) However, foreign laws and regulations, customary laws, etc. may be ruled out by the parties with their own proof that the court might be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able

However, Article 5 (1) of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act (Law No. 718 of Sep. 18, 1961) which was enforced at the time of the purchase of this case by the plaintiff, may prohibit or impose conditions or restrictions on the acquisition of the rights to the land of foreigners or foreign corporations by Cabinet Ordinance, with regard to districts necessary for national defense, industry, and other public purposes. (2) The district under the preceding paragraph shall be designated by Cabinet Ordinance, and Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act (Ordinance No. 645 of Apr. 10, 1962) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Ordinance No. 645 of Apr. 10, 1962) provides that any district in which the acquisition of rights to the land may be prohibited or imposed conditions or restrictions on the foreigner or foreign corporation under the provisions of Article 5 (1) of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act (Act No. 718 of Sep. 18, 1961) shall be listed in the attached Table.

According to the records, the plaintiff is a foreigner who voluntarily acquired the nationality of the United States of America and lost the nationality of the Republic of Korea in around 1925. On the other hand, the land in this case is the land within the designated district stipulated in the Foreigner's Land Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and even without the permission of the Minister of National Defense for the acquisition of ownership, it is clear that the plaintiff cannot acquire the ownership of the land lawfully.

Nevertheless, since the court below did not prove that the acquisition of rights under the foreign land law is restricted by the opinion of the court below, and the defendant's rejection of the above defense is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, the court below's decision cannot be maintained on the ground that the theory of lawsuit on the land of this case is justified.

2. Of the judgment below, the Defendants did not submit an appeal as to the part of the building, but did not state the grounds for appeal in their petition of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal as to this part is dismissed in accordance with Article 399 of the Civil Procedure Act.

For the same reason, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the land shall be reversed and remanded, and the appeal as to the remaining part shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal as to the said part shall be borne by the Defendants, who are the losing parties, so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)