Cancellation of a contract and the right of a third party;

Even if a sales contract is cancelled and invalidated, the rights of a third party who acquired rights based on the contract before the contract is cancelled shall not be undermined between the third party's bad faith and bad faith.

Articles 110(1) and 548(1) of the Civil Act

For garment

A. 1 other than the Korea Food Industry Corporation

1. Defendant A Food Industry Co., Ltd. shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership, which was completed on February 21, 1983 by the Cheongju District Court Cheongcheon District Court Macheon District Court 1241, which was received on February 21, 1983.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Dongseo Industries Corporation is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant A Food Industry Co., Ltd. shall be borne by the said Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant East Food Industry Co., Ltd., respectively by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is demanding that the plaintiff implement the registration of creation of each superficies, which was made on March 16, 1983 with respect to each real estate stated in the separate sheet, and the registration of establishment of each superficies, which was made on March 16, 1983 by the Cheongju District Court, the Cheongju District Court, the 2174, and the receipt of each of the above registration offices, and each of the registration procedures for cancellation.

(1) Facts of recognition

원고는 별지목록기재 부동산(이하에서는 이 사건 부동산이라 한다)을 소유하고 있던 중 1983. 2. 17. 피고 아주식품공업주식회사(이하에서는 피고 아주식품이라 한다)와 사이에 이 사건 부동산을 대금 54,500,000원에 매도하기로 하되 계약금 5,000,000원은 계약당일에 중도금 30,000,000원은 같은해 3. 10.에, 잔금 19,500,000원은 같은 해 5. 10.에 각 지급하기로 하는 내용의 매매계약을 체결한 사실, 피고 아주식품은 위 계약당일 원고에게 계약금 5,000,000원을 지급하고 중도금과 잔금의 지급담보로서 소외 성기양 발행의 액면 금 50,000,000원, 지급기일 1983. 5. 10. 지급장소 제일은행 대전 중부지점으로 된 약속어음 1매를 배서 교부하고 원고는 이 사건 부동산의 소유권이전등기에 필요한 서류를 피고 아주식품에게 교부하여 피고 아주식품은 1983. 2. 21. 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 주문기재와 같은 소유권이전등기를 경료한 사실, 그 후 피고 아주식품은 1983. 3. 7. 피고 동서유리공업주식회사(이하에서는 피고 동서유리라고 한다)와 사이에 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 채무자 피고 아주식품, 근저당권자 피고 동서유리, 채권최고액 금 150,000,000원의 근저당설정계약과 수목의 소유를 목적으로 하는 존속기간 30년의 지상권설정계약을 체결하여 그에 따라 청구취지기재와 같은 피고 동서유리 명의의 근저당권설정등기와 지상권설정등기가 각 경료된 사실은 당사자들 사이에 다툼이 없고 원고와 피고 동서유리와의 사이에서는 각 그 성립에 다툼이 없고, 피고 아주식품과의 사이에서는 각 공문서이므로 진정성립이 추정되는 갑 제7호증의 4,6,8 내지 19(진술조서등), 증인 박성창의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제4호증의 1,2(약속어음표면 및 이면), 증인 권영지 및 황봉술의 증언에 의하여 각 그 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제6호증의 1내지 5(시인 및 확인서등)의 각 기재와 증인 권영지, 같은 박성창, 같은 황봉술, 같은 김준식의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 피고 아주식품은 피고 동서유리와의 사이에 1981. 11. 경부터 공병 외상매매계약을 체결한 후 피고 동서유리로부터 공병을 외상으로 매입하고 수시로 그 대금결재를 하여 오던 중 1983. 2. 경 그 외상 매매대금액이 금 120,000,000원에 달하여 피고 동서유리로부터 공병의 공급을 중단당하고 있던 중 원고로부터 이 사건 부동산을 매수하게 되자 이를 그 담보로 제공하고 피고 동서유리로부터 다시 공병의 공급을 받게 되었는데 그 경위를 보면 원고와 피고 아주식품 사이의 이 건 부동산에 대한 위 매매계약을 중개한 소외 권영지는 피고 아주식품의 대표이사 소외 임평국의 부탁을 받고 1982. 11.경 이 건 부동산 위에 식재된 수목 현황을 조사한 후, 이 건 부동산 위에는 오동나무 2,300본 등 3,770여본의 수목밖에 식재되어 있지 아니함에도 불구하고 9,800본의 수목이 식재되어 있는 듯이 조림실적 확인원을 기안하여 충북 옥천군 안내면 방하목리 산림계장겸 안내면 산림조합 총대리인 소외 황봉술 등의 확인을 받은 후 이를 옥천군수에게 제출하여 그와 같은 확인원(을 제5호증)을 발급받아 이를 위 임평국에게 교부하자, 동 임평국은 1983. 1.경 공인감정사인 소외 이보활에게 동 확인원을 교부하면서 이 건 부동산의 시가감정을 의뢰하고, 위 이보활은 위 확인원에 기초하여 이 건 부동산 및 그 위에 식재된 수목의 시가 감정서를 작성하여 위 임평국에게 교부한 사실, 그 후 위 임평국은 위 시가 감정서와 이 건 부동산의 등기서류 등을 피고 동서유리에 제시하면서 이 건 부동산을 담보로 제공하겠으니 중단된 공병거래를 재개하여 줄 것을 요구하여 위와 같은 근저당권 및 지상권설정계약을 체결하게 된 사실 및 피고 아주식품이 이 건 부동산 매매의 중도금 및 잔금의 지급담보조로 원고에게 배서 교부한 소외 성기양이 발행한 액면 금 50,000,000원의 위 약속어음을 교부받은 직후 제일은행 대전 중부지점에 조회를 하여 소외인과의 거래가 있음을 확인하였으나 1983. 3. 17.에 이르러 지급제시를 하니 무거래로 지급 거절되었으며, 위 성기양은 1981. 8. 5.부터 위 제일은행 대전 중부지점과 당좌거래를 하여오던 중 1983. 3. 12.부터 같은해 5. 12.까지 사이에 수표 9매 액면 도합금 54,510,000원을 발행하였으나 동 수표들이 부도 처리된 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

(2) Judgment on the main argument

The plaintiff first asserted that the above sales contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant Aju Food on February 11, 1983 is null and void because it is a juristic act or an unfair juristic act contrary to good morals and other social order. Thus, each transfer of ownership is null and void and the above registration of creation of superficies and superficies has been made on this ground. Even if the above assertion is groundless, the above sales contract was made on April 1, 1983 by deceiving the plaintiff and allowing the plaintiff to express his intent to sell the real estate in this case. Thus, the plaintiff revoked the above sales contract's declaration on April 1983. Since the above sales contract was concluded with the defendant Aju Food with the knowledge that it was established by deception of the defendant Aju Food, the above sales contract was made with the defendant Aju Food, the registration of the above transfer of ownership and superficies is also void.

Therefore, as seen in the above facts, since the Plaintiff’s sale and purchase contract on the instant real estate was made to make a false appraisal of the market value of the instant real estate before the date of payment of the intermediate payment, as seen above, and the maximum amount of debt is provided to the Defendant Dong Seo-ri, which would be KRW 150,500,000, the purchase and sale price of which would be KRW 150,000, and the intermediate payment and the payment of superficies were made, and the promissory notes issued to the Plaintiff, which were issued to the Plaintiff as collateral for the payment of the remainder, were rejected at the Daejeon Branch of the Japanese Bank, which is the place of payment for the intermediate payment. However, it is difficult to view that the above sale and sale contract violated good morals and other social order, or it is unreasonable to view that the above sale and sale contract was concluded for the Plaintiff’s intermediate payment as an unfair legal act regardless of social order, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above sale and sale contract was null and void since it was no reason to acknowledge that the above sale and sale contract was made by the above Defendant Yang Food as evidence.

(3) Judgment on the conjunctive assertion

(A) Determination as to the claim against Defendant A Food Industry Corporation

In the sales contract for this real estate concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant Aju Food, the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff the intermediate payment of KRW 3,00,000 by March 10, 1983. In full view of the above evidence Nos. 4-1,2 (bill of Promissory Notes and back), Gap evidence Nos. 3 (Notice) where authenticity is recognized by the witness's testimony, and the witness's testimony, the defendant Aju Food failed to pay the plaintiff the intermediate payment of KRW 3,000,000 by March 10, 1983, which is the agreed date, and the plaintiff notified the defendant to pay the intermediate payment of KRW 3,00,000 to the defendant Aju Food on or around April 20, 1983, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any other obligation to cancel the sales contract for the above real estate unless the above defendant notified the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration to the above defendant on or around April 20, 1983.

(B) Determination as to the claim against the defendant Dong Seogsan Industries Corporation

The plaintiff asserts that since the above defendant's preliminary assertion against the above defendant was cancelled the sales contract and the registration of the transfer of ownership to the real estate in this case for the defendant's shares is invalid, the registration of the establishment of neighboring mortgage and the registration of the creation of superficies should also be null and void. In addition, since the above mortgage and the creation of superficies between the defendants was made in collusion with each other and were null and void, each of the above registrations completed accordingly should be cancelled.

Therefore, even if the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant Aju Food was cancelled and null and void as above, the third party's right, which was acquired on the basis of the contract prior to the cancellation of the contract, cannot be prejudicial to whether it is good faith or bad faith, and the sales contract was cancelled on April 20, 1983, and the conclusion of the right to collateral security and superficies contract was done on March 7, 1983 as above. As such, the cancellation of the above sales contract with the defendant Aju Food cannot be asserted against the defendant Aju Food, and therefore, the above argument is groundless, and since the above facts are without dispute, it cannot be asserted that the transaction was conducted between the defendant Aju Food, which was conducted on the basis of the above facts that the transaction was conducted on the basis of the security interest of the defendant Aju Food, and the transaction was conducted on the basis of the fact that the transaction was conducted on the basis of the above fact that the transaction was conducted on the basis of the collateral price of the defendant Aju Food and thus, it cannot be acknowledged as invalid as the market price of this case.

(4) Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant A Food is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of each of the original text written on this case’s real estate to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for this case’s food pertaining to Defendant A Food is justified, and all of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A Food B shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Yellow upper (Presiding Judge)