1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

A. On February 16, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased the shares of 2314/11603 of G and 1157/11603 of H (hereinafter “instant shares”) from the Defendant for KRW 400 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff purchased the shares of 2314/1603 of G and 1157/11603 of H among the shares of 791m2, D forest, 362m2, E forest, 863m2, F forest, and 646m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. From March 22, 2007 to December 3 of the same year, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant totaling KRW 369,50,000 to the purchase price of this case.

C. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 300 million from I, J, K, and L (hereinafter “I, etc.”) to raise the purchase price of the instant case. As a security, on February 22, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant shares to the I, etc. with the maximum debt amount of KRW 450,000,000, and the Plaintiff, the debtor, etc.

H’s share in land D, E, and F among the instant land was transferred to G due to the partition of co-owned property on July 20, 2007, and G’s share in land C among the instant land was transferred to H.

(B) The shares of G and H are not the shares before and after the division of the jointly owned property, but the shares of G and H are "the shares of this case".

As the Plaintiff failed to repay the borrowed amount, I et al. applied for voluntary auction of the instant share to Suwon District Court M on October 21, 2008, based on the above-mortgaged mortgage.

I, etc. purchase the instant shares in the above auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of I, etc. on January 7, 2011.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2 through 5, and 15 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The land transaction contract concluded without obtaining permission for the land within the land transaction permission zone does not take effect in terms of the obligatory effect.

However, in the case of a land transaction contract under the premise that permission is obtained, it shall be valid retroactively when permission is obtained.