A. The premise for recognizing that, where a sale contract is concluded on the premise that a land transaction permit is obtained under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the buyer has a duty to cooperate with him/her under all the conditions that enable

B. In a case where a contract is finally null and void, whether it is against the good faith principle to assert the invalidity of the contract.

A. In order for a purchaser to fulfill certain conditions in addition to filing an application for permission for land transaction under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the following should be met: (a) in order for the purchaser to have a duty to fulfill such specific conditions; and (b) there should be cases where the contractual party to the contract at the time of the conclusion of the contract assumes that the contractual party satisfies such specific conditions in a relationship between the parties prior to the contract, such as the details and purpose of the contract, and the situation at the time of the contract; and (c) the mere fact that the contractual party entered into the contract on the premise that the transaction permission was

B. Even if a contract is in a state of flexible invalidation due to a failure to obtain permission for land transaction, if an application for permission for permission for a transaction was rejected, barring special circumstances, the transaction contract shall be deemed null and void at the time of refusal, barring special circumstances. In a case where a transaction contract in a state of flexible invalidation is finally null and void due to a failure to file an application for permission for a transaction, even if a party is responsible for the final invalidation of the transaction contract, the assertion of invalidation of the contract shall not be deemed as contrary to the principle of good faith (in such a case, the other party may claim damages arising therefrom).

Articles 21-3(1) and 21-3(7) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 2(1) of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 93Da44319, 44326 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 505)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na14591 delivered on September 14, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract to purchase the instant land, which is farmland within the land transaction permission area under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and paid the down payment and intermediate payment, etc. to the Defendant; and (b) subsequently confirmed that the Plaintiff filed an application for land transaction permission with the competent authority for the land transaction permission on the ground that the Plaintiff was not the actual user of the instant land; and (c) the said original and the Defendant was finally null and void since the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not obtain a land transaction

In other words, the court below presumed that the plaintiff, as a director within the same zone as the land of this case, had a duty to file an application for permission for land transaction, on the premise that the plaintiff had a duty to file an application for permission for land transaction, and that the plaintiff did not actually reside within the same zone as the land of this case after the conclusion of the contract for the sale and purchase of this case and did not actually reside within the land of this case, and did not file an application for land transaction until the time of the lawsuit of this case, he returned the resident registration to Sungnam-si, which is the actual place of residence, and dismissed the above fact. The court below found that the plaintiff intentionally avoided the duty of the plaintiff to file an application for land transaction permission by intentionally residing within the same zone as the land of this case, and that the plaintiff's failure to fulfill his duty to file an application for permission for land transaction is against the principle of good faith

2. However, this decision of the court below is not acceptable.

First of all, in order for a purchaser to fulfill certain conditions in addition to the application for permission for land transaction under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the obligation of the purchaser to fulfill such specific conditions should be determined in cases where the contract is made under the premise that the parties to the contract have to fulfill such specific conditions in a relationship between the parties to the contract such as the details and purpose of the contract at the time of concluding the contract, and the situation at the time of the contract. The mere fact that the contract was entered into on the premise that the transaction permission was simply obtained, it cannot be determined that the purchaser has the duty to cooperate with all the conditions under which the transaction permission

However, even if examining the record, no circumstance exists to deem that the Plaintiff, the buyer, was in the same zone as the instant land and actually residing in and applied for the permission of land transaction. Rather, according to the facts found by the lower court, the Plaintiff continued to reside in the Sungnam city prior to the conclusion of the instant contract and operated a black salt processing business with his family, and his children were attending the said place. Thus, if it is true, the Plaintiff is not necessarily deemed to have entered into the instant contract on the premise that the Plaintiff was actually living in the same zone as the instant land from the beginning of the contract, and actually resided in the same zone as the instant land and actually entered into the land transaction application.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff was liable to file an application for permission for land transaction while moving into the same zone as the instant land solely on the premise that the instant sales contract was subject to permission for transaction. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the buyer’s duty to cooperate in the transaction contract which did not obtain permission for land transaction under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory.

In addition, even if a contract is in a state of flexible invalidation due to a failure to obtain permission for land transaction, unless there is a special circumstance, the contract shall be deemed null and void at the time of refusal, barring special circumstances. In a case where a contract in a state of flexible invalidation is finally null and void as a result of a failure to file an application for permission for transaction, even if a party is responsible for the final invalidation of the contract, it shall not be deemed that the assertion of invalidation of the contract is contrary to the principle of good faith (in this case, the other party may seek compensation for damage).

Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the good faith in determining that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff, while recognizing that an application for land transaction permission regarding the instant sales contract was denied, failed to fulfill his/her duty to obtain an application for land transaction permission, is contrary to the good faith principle.

3. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)