In a case where the other party to a transaction actively participates in the act of breach of trust, such as inducing or inducing the other party to a transaction, or participating in the whole process of the act of breach of trust, whether the contract entered into with the executor may become null and void (affirmative)

Where the other party to a transaction actively participates in the act of breach of trust, such as inducing or inducing the other party to a transaction, or participating in the whole process of the act of breach of trust, a contract entered into with an executor may become null and void as it constitutes an anti-social juristic act, and any person who has a benefit to assert the invalidation of a juristic act, which contains matters contrary to good morals and other social order, may assert the invalidation. Therefore, even if the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate has been completed on the grounds of anti-social order legal act, the registration may be cancelled as the invalidation of the cause. Therefore, in a case where the title holder exercises a claim based on the ownership of a real right,

Articles 103, 213, and 214 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2006Da47677 decided Mar. 26, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 528)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park In-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Na52445 decided January 16, 2015

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where the other party to a transaction actively participates in the act of breach of trust, such as inducing or inducing the other party to the transaction, or participating in the whole process of the act of breach of trust, the contract entered into with the executor and thus becomes null and void as it constitutes an anti-social juristic act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da47677, Mar. 26, 2009). Any person who has interest in claiming invalidation of a juristic act, the contents of which are contrary to good morals and other social order, may assert invalidity. Therefore, even if the registration of ownership transfer on real estate was completed due to a anti-social juristic act, the registration may be cancelled as a ground for invalidation. Thus, if the title holder exercises a real right claim based on the ownership, the other party who exercises the right may assert the invalidity of the above juristic act as a defense.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's act of purchasing the store of this case is invalid because it is merely an unauthorized occupant of the store of this case, and that the plaintiff's act of claiming the invalidity of the purchase of the store of this case is against the justice concept and social order without any legal basis, and that the act of anti-social order can be asserted absolutely by anyone, and thus, the plaintiff's act of anti-social order can be absolutely null and void. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff's act of selling the store of this case constitutes an act in violation of social order, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the delivery based on ownership and the claim for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for unjust enrichment.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the invalidation of anti-social order and the good faith principle, or by failing to exercise the right of explanation or omission of

3. Therefore, the appeal is 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)