anti-sociality of the act of donation of real estate sold by a father

If the defendant sold the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and received a registration notice from the plaintiff, and received the donation, and actively participated in the act of violation of trust in the division, the above donation act shall be deemed null and void as an anti-social juristic act.

Article 103 of the Civil Act

Domination tax

Defendant-Appellant Nos. 1 and 15

Busan District Court Decision 81Na166 delivered on August 21, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant-appellant.

(1) The first summary is that the court below's measure that recognized that the Plaintiff's prior Nonparty 1 purchased the instant site from the deceased Nonparty 1 who was the owner at the time of the instant site was erroneous in finding facts without evidence in violation of the rules of evidence. However, such a reason does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground

(2) The second summary is that the court below held that the Defendant’s donation of the site of this case from Nonparty 2, his father, constituted an anti-social juristic act as it actively participated in the act of breach of trust of Nonparty 2, but the Defendant expressed his intention of acceptance passively, and it is therefore contrary to the Supreme Court precedents that held that the anti-social juristic act under Article 103 of the Civil Act is established only when the buyer actively participated in the sale of real estate, such as solicitation by the buyer.

However, the court below interpreted that the defendant was actively involved in the act of breach of trust by receiving the land of this case from his father in consideration of the status relationship between the donor and the donee and the degree of designation of the defendant as to the status of the plaintiff's wife and the status of the plaintiff in this case where the defendant, who was the plaintiff, was aware of the fact that the gift act was performed as stated in its reasoning and the subject matter of donation was already sold to the plaintiff and received registration demand from the plaintiff. This is without merit because it is contrary to the attitude of the Supreme Court precedents that interpreted the buyer's active participation as the elements for establishing anti-social order in double trade

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the same attorney Lee Jong-won.

(1) The gist of the first issue is that the court below's decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision regarding the presumption power of registration in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership, recognizing that the Plaintiff's prior approval number was purchased from Nonparty 1, the Defendant's early aid Nonparty 1, and excluded the presumption power of the Defendant's registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership. However, based on evidence, the court below does not have any conflict with the interpretation of the precedents such as the theory because it confirmed that the act of donation, which is the cause of the Defendant's registration, is null and void, and orders the cancellation registration thereof, which is the cause of the Defendant's registration, and the court below did not err by the determination of the above facts

(2) The second summary is that the judgment of the court below that the non-party 2's donation to the defendant constitutes a juristic act against social order is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's precedents, but this point is without merit as stated in the second summary of the grounds for appeal by the attorney-at-law.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)