In a sale and purchase contract for land within the land transaction permission area, where either party clearly expresses his/her intention to refuse to perform the duty of cooperation, whether the other party may file a lawsuit for such cooperation.

Since a sales contract concluded before obtaining permission from the competent authority on the land within a zone subject to permission for land transaction under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is in a state of passive invalidation, so that both parties to the contract can cooperate with each other so that the contract can be completed as effective. Thus, even if either party clearly expresses his/her intent to refuse the performance of the duty to cooperate in the application for permission, the other party may file a claim for cooperation in the procedure for the application for permission. However, if both parties clearly express their intention not to file the application for permission, the contract in a state of flexible invalidation shall be null and void.

Article 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 642) Supreme Court Decision 93Da26397 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 195Sang, 1950) Supreme Court Decision 95Da2487 delivered on June 9, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2381 delivered on September 5, 1995) (Gong195Ha, 3358)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Dasan, Attorneys Yoon Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 94Na8126 delivered on May 10, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal

The plaintiff is bound to submit a legitimate statement of grounds of appeal on the defendant's grounds of appeal in the response to the submission of the statement, and there is no explanation on what part of the judgment below is unlawful.

2. We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

If the evidence presented by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, the court below is just in finding that the defendant granted the right of representation to the non-party 1 regarding the conclusion of the contract of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misconception of the facts by failing to exhaust all deliberations, as discussed in the judgment below. There is no reason

The Second Ground of Appeal

Since a sales contract which was concluded before obtaining permission from the competent authority on the land within a zone subject to permission for land transaction under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is in the so-called flexible invalidation condition so that both parties who concluded the contract can cooperate with each other so that the contract can be completed as effective, even if either party clearly expresses his/her intent to refuse to perform the duty to cooperate with the permission, the other party can file a lawsuit to seek cooperation in the procedure for the permission. However, if both parties clearly express their intent not to file an application for permission, the contract becomes null and void in a state of flexible invalidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243, Dec. 24, 1991; Supreme Court Decisions 91Da3766, Jul. 27, 1993; 95Da2487, Jun. 9, 1995).

Therefore, in this case where the plaintiff filed a claim for cooperation with the defendant who is the other party to the contract of this case, even if the defendant made clear his intention to refuse to perform the duty of cooperation as discussed by the defendant, the above sales contract cannot be deemed null and void definitely. Thus, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and the decision of the court below is related to the case where the parties clearly expressed their intention not to file an application for permission, and it is not inconsistent with the above decision, and it is not contrary to the above decision, since there is no reason for the argument.

As to the third ground for appeal

According to the records of this case, as the plaintiff asserted, it is evident that on October 30, 1991, the plaintiff agreed to transfer the remaining amount not paid or transferred to Nonparty 2 (the defendant's married children) of the above non-party 1's wife and the forest land located in Chungcheongbuk-gun instead of the right to lease the plaintiff's management restaurant, but it is merely a modification of the terms and conditions of payment on the premise that the sales contract of this case is valid, and it cannot be deemed as null and void under the above agreement. Thus, even if the defendant asserted that the sales contract of this case is finally null and void under the above agreement of this case, the above argument of the court below cannot be dismissed, and it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment because the court below did not make a decision. Ultimately, there is no reason to argue.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)