Whether the loss of nationality of the Republic of Korea shall be lost (negative) and whether the foreign land law shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case (negative)

Korean nationals have acquired permanent residence in Japan and do not lose our nationality, and it is not necessary to apply the Foreigner's Land Law to the case of foreigners who have obtained permanent residence.

Article 12 of the Nationality Act, Article 13 of the Nationality Act, Article 1 of the Foreigner's Land Act

Plaintiff’s Attorney Cho Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na1016 delivered on September 17, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in the event of a lapse of the submission period).

1. The judgment of the court below is just in the decision of the court below that the plaintiff purchased the real estate independently or jointly with defendant 1 and registered the transfer of ownership to defendant 2, and that the property is merely a real act of purchasing as his representative in the purchase by defendant 1, the plaintiff is justified in the records, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the evidence preparation, and it is clear in the records that the plaintiff's assertion as mentioned above is the cause of claim. Thus, the judgment of the court below to this purport is just in the decision of the court below that the plaintiff is the cause of claim, and there is no error in the burden of proof such as the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be said that there is no error in the misapprehension of the burden of proof.

2. According to the records, it is clear that Defendant 1 is a citizen of the Republic of Korea, and it cannot be found that he is not a citizen of the Republic of Korea, and it does not constitute a ground for losing our nationality by acquiring permanent residence in Japan (see Articles 12 and 13 of the Nationality Act). (See Articles 12 and 13 of the Nationality Act) The theory that the law on the land of foreigners shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where the foreigner is considered as a foreigner who has obtained permanent residence in Japan, cannot be adopted as an independent opinion, but there is no theory about this point.

3. The provision that the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy is required for the acquisition of real estate by a non-resident under the Foreign Exchange Control Act is merely a so-called regulation, and even if an act violating the law is done in violation of the law, it is a view that it does not affect the validity of the private law. Thus, the court below's decision that the defendant 1's purchase of real estate is valid in different reasons (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2367 and Supreme Court Decision 72Da2161 delivered on April 22, 1975) is justified, and the theory that the above 80Da2367 delivered on the basis of the majority opinion is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)