[1] In a case where an agreement is reached between the seller, the buyer and the third party on the transfer of the status of the buyer under the land sales contract which was concluded without permission for the transaction, whether the third party's claim for cooperation in the procedure of application for permission

[2] In the case of paragraph (1) above, the case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the agreement should be deemed as a final and conclusive invalid transaction and a new sales contract between the seller and the third party

[1] In a case where a sale contract is concluded without permission from the competent authority on the land subject to a land transaction permit under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory without permission from the competent authority, if the sale contract is a contract on the premise that the permission is not granted, but rather a contract on the condition that the permission is granted. In a case where the seller, the buyer, and the third party have agreed to the effect that the status of the purchaser under the sale contract under the current invalidation is transferred to the buyer from the buyer, the land transaction permission system under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is legislative intent to prevent speculative transactions of the land and promote normal transactions, such agreement shall take effect only after the permission from the competent authority on the sale contract is granted between the seller and the buyer. Unless there is such permission, it cannot be said that the purchaser of the sale contract in the current state of invalidation is transferred from the buyer to the third party and the third party can seek the fulfillment of the duty of cooperation in the procedure of the land transaction directly against the seller.

[2] In the case of paragraph (1) above, the case reversing the judgment of the court below which rejected the agreement on the ground that the original contract of sale should be deemed null and void since both the seller and the third party did not obtain land transaction permission, and a new contract of sale should be deemed to have been concluded between the seller and the third party

[1] Article 21-3 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 449 and Article 450 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105 and 563 of the Civil Act, Article 21-3 of the Act on the Utilization and Management

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da3982 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2344) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da21435 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2091), Supreme Court Decision 93Da26397 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 195Sang, 1950)

Suwon Automobile Co., Ltd. (Attorney Su-gil et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na11636 delivered on December 22, 1995

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

In a case where a sale contract is concluded without the permission of the competent authority concerning the land subject to a land transaction permit prescribed by the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, it shall be deemed that the sale contract is in a state of flexible invalidation if the contract is a contract which is premised on obtaining permission, not a contract which excludes or excludes permission from the beginning. As to the purchaser's status under the sale contract which is under a state of passive invalidation, even if the seller and the third party agreed to the effect that the third party transfer the purchaser's status from the buyer, it is the legislative intent of the land transaction permission system under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, in order to prevent speculative transactions of the land and promote normal transactions, it shall be deemed that the above agreement takes effect only after the permission of the competent authority for the sale contract is granted between the seller and the buyer. Unless the above permission is granted, it shall not be deemed that the purchaser status of the sale contract in a state of flexible invalidation is transferred from the buyer to the third party, and the third party can seek the fulfillment of the duty of direct cooperation in the procedure for the sale.

The court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. On the third ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case owned by the defendant from the defendant 2 on January 26, 1989 to 1,350,00,000 won on several occasions on May 26 of the same year, but only one of the two co-representatives of the plaintiff was a foreigner, for the purpose of completing the registration of ownership transfer in the plaintiff's future, it was repealed upon the enactment of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition and Management Act (Act No. 4726 of Jan. 7, 1994) under Articles 5 and 6 of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition and Management Act (Act No. 4726 of Jan. 7, 194). The plaintiff and the defendant did not receive the registration of ownership transfer because they did not obtain the above registration of ownership transfer from the plaintiff 1 to the defendant 2 on May 25, 192, the plaintiff and the defendant had already agreed to the plaintiff 1 to collect the land of this case from the defendant 1 to 90, and the above land.

B. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

In other words, according to the records, the defendant, on May 25, 192, concluded a sale contract with the non-party 1 on January 26, 1989, and concluded a sale contract with the non-party 1, 70,000 won. Of them, the defendant's direct payment from the non-party 1 was limited to 20,000 won, and the remaining amount was paid by the plaintiff 1,350,000 won. The above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not receive the above sale contract from the non-party 2 on the non-party 5's original condition that the non-party 2 would have received the above 9's share transfer registration as to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's share transfer registration as to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's share transfer registration as to the above non-party 9's share transfer registration as to the non-party 1, 1994.

However, the court below held that the plaintiff and the defendant and the non-party 1 were finally null and void as of May 25, 1992, and cannot be deemed to have concluded a new contract with the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the formation of a new contract, and there is a ground to point out this error.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the third point, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)