A seller of a real estate who knowingly purchased the real estate with knowledge of the sale and anti-social legal acts

Even if the buyer knowingly purchased the target real estate to a third party with the knowledge that the buyer had already sold it, it cannot be readily concluded that the sales contract is an anti-social juristic act.

Article 103 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da1783 Decided April 27, 1976, Supreme Court Decision 66Da2451, 2452 Decided December 5, 1967

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 196Na152 delivered on March 20, 1980

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below held that even if the above land was originally owned by the non-party 16 square meters and 116 square meters and 359 square meters and its adjoining land from the above non-party 1 on September 24, 1956, the defendant specified 106 square meters from the above non-party 193 and occupied the above land until now, the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the above non-party had already sold the above land to the defendant, and the plaintiff was actively involved in the act of the non-party's breach of trust or recommended the double sale of the above land to the above non-party 1, and thus, the plaintiff's purchase of the above land is invalid as it goes against social order, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for this lawsuit is groundless. However, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-party 2's sale and purchase of the above land under the non-party 1's name as the non-party 2's sale and purchase contract, and it cannot be seen as a violation of social order.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-su (Presiding Justice)