(a) The validity of a sale contract where the registration of ownership transfer is made due to a donation to escape a land transaction permit after the conclusion of a sale contract;

B. The principle of good faith that a person who violates Article 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory claims invalidation

A. In a case where the buyer purchased the forest land belonging to the regulation zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory but completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation by the competent administrative agency without obtaining land transaction permission, at least the buyer’s decision to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation for the purpose of avoiding this without obtaining land transaction permission, the sale and purchase contract was finally null and void, and the buyer’s registration of ownership transfer under the name of the buyer should be deemed null and void

B. The reason why a person who violated Article 21-3(1) and (7) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which is a mandatory law, claims the invalidation of a contract is against the principle of trust and good faith if it is rejected, the purpose of legislation of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which prohibits the entry into force of a speculative transaction, is completely eliminated. Thus, if an application for land transaction is filed with the competent authority in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and purpose of acquisition between the parties to the transaction, the application can be granted permission in conformity with the standards for permission prescribed by the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, but it cannot be said that such assertion

(a)Article 21ter(1) and Article 21ter(7) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory;

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da21435 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2091) 91Da41316 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2740) (Gong163 delivered on September 6, 196). Supreme Court Decision 68Da1323 delivered on September 6, 196 (No 163Du19)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant)

Defendant Oh-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant Lessee (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and 13 Defendant Lessee (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Busan District Court Decision 92Na7730, 93Na5113 decided July 16, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine the defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal.

The record reveals that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant in relation to the shares exceeding the defendant's share of 80/95 shares in forest 15,463 square meters and ( Address 1 omitted) forest 15,463 square meters in Ulsan-gun ( Address 2 omitted) forest 25,920 square meters in forest 25,920 square meters conforms to the defendant's substantive rights relation, and thus is valid, the court below's rejection of such assertion without reliance on the evidence corresponding thereto, and it is just to accept the measures, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the rules of evidence. The argument is without merit.

2. We examine the remaining Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

A. On the first ground for appeal

In the regulatory zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the "land transaction contract" in the regulation zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory shall be deemed null and void because not only the real right and the obligatory effect have not occurred before the permission of the competent authority is obtained. However, in the case of a contract which is premised on obtaining the permission (a contract which is not a contract that excludes or avoids the permission shall be deemed to correspond to this, the contract shall be deemed to be retroactively effective, and when the permission is granted, the contract shall become null and void, and shall be deemed to be in the state of flexible invalidation until the permission is granted, and in the case of non-permission, the parties to the contract shall be deemed to have the duty to cooperate with each other so that the contract can be completed as effective. Thus, both parties to the contract shall jointly apply for the permission of the competent authority (see

However, as duly determined by the court below, if the remaining Defendants purchased the above (No. 3 omitted) forest land at a size of 58,909 square meters and a total sum of 801,90,000 won from the deceased non-party 1 on July 13, 1990, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of donation as to the above forest land without obtaining land transaction permission from the competent authority, the court below did not have any examination as to whether the non-party 1 and the remaining Defendants decided to exclude or set aside the land transaction permission from the beginning while entering into the sale contract for the second forest, but at least the remaining Defendants decided to register ownership transfer for reasons of donation without obtaining land transaction permission, the sale contract for the second forest becomes null and void, and the above Defendants' ownership transfer registration under the name of the above Defendants became null and void. Thus, the court below's decision is without merit. It is justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory.

B. On the second ground for appeal

Article 21-2(1), Article 21-3(1) and (7), Article 21-4 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Regulation of Land Transaction and Trade, such as the Private School Act, the Farmland Reform Act, or a foreign local court, regulates the transfer of rights for the purpose of preserving land for a specific purpose, unlike the above regulations, the competent authorities directly intervene in land transaction between individuals within the regulatory zones in order to regulate the transfer of rights for the purpose of speculation, and allow them to grant permission, without such permission, to prevent the effectiveness of the contract under restraint of the parties as seen above (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da1243, Dec. 24, 191), and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Regulation of Land Transaction and Trade, such as the Local Land Transaction and Management Act, and the Act on the Regulation of Land Transaction and Management to regulate the transfer of rights for the purpose of speculation.

Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that the plaintiff's claim of this case is contrary to the principle of good faith in this case, which does not seem to have a special circumstance as seen above.

C. On the third ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records, the court below's rejection of the above defendants' assertion of illegal consideration or the assertion that it violates the rules of good faith and good faith shall be justified, and there is no error of law in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in the process. Thus, the argument of illegality in the incomplete hearing shall not be justified.

3. Accordingly, all appeals by the Defendants are 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 Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)