[1] Whether a seller who sells land within a regulatory zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory without permission is the subject of breach of trust (negative)

[2] Where the date of concluding a sale and purchase contract for land within the regulation area of land transaction permission is before the designation and public notice is made as a regulation area, the necessity of permission by the competent authority (negative)

[3] Where there is no certificate of farmland trade at the time of entering into a sales contract, the validity of the sales contract

[4] The effects of a contract in violation of the duty to report under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory

[1] If the seller sells the land within the regulation zone under Article 21-2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, but there is no transaction permission under the same Act, it cannot be deemed that the seller has a duty to cooperate in the buyer's registration of transfer of ownership, and therefore, the seller cannot be deemed as a person who administers another's business

[2] If the execution date of the sale contract for the land located within the regulation area of land transaction permission under Article 21-2 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is before the designation and public notice is made, it is not necessary to obtain permission from the competent authority for the sale contract.

[3] The Farmland Reform Act does not completely prohibit a person who is not a farmer from acquiring farmland, as well as the certification of a location agency under the same Act is not the requirement for the establishment of farmland sale. Thus, the sale as a bond contract does not become null and void on the ground that there is no certificate of farmland sale at the time of conclusion of a sales

[4] The provisions pertaining to the reported area under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory do not deny the validity of a contract which violates the obligation to report as a regulatory law.

[1] Article 35 (2) of the Criminal Code, Articles 21-2 and 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory / [2] Articles 21-2 and 21-3 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory / [3] Article 19 (2) of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) / [4] Article 21-7 (1)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Do612 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1998), Supreme Court Decision 94Do697 delivered on January 20, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1186), Supreme Court Decision 95Do2891 delivered on February 9, 196 (Gong1996Sang, 101 delivered on April 13, 1993), Supreme Court Decision 93Da1419 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1399Sang, 1398Sang, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 92Da4919 delivered on November 23, 1993 (Gong1994, 165) 93Da196398 delivered on April 12, 196

Defendant

Defendant

Cheongyang Law Firm, Attorney Lee Jae-hoon

Suwon District Court Decision 95No2332 delivered on May 30, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acknowledged that the defendant sold the land of this case in 23 million won to the victim on May 14, 198, and received the full payment from the victim on the date of the contract, but as to the land of this case on two occasions on June 27, 1990 and December 28 of the same year, each of the registration of creation of a new village agricultural cooperative under the name of the non-indicted mother agricultural cooperative was completed, thereby gaining economic benefits equivalent to the judgment and causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim. Examining this in comparison with the records, the above fact-finding by the court of first instance is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Although the land located within the regulation zone stipulated in Article 21-2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory was sold, if there is no permission for transaction under the same Act, it cannot be said that the seller has a duty to cooperate with the buyer in the registration of transfer of ownership to the buyer, and therefore, the seller cannot be deemed as a person who administers another's business who is the subject of

However, if the execution date of the sale contract for the land located within the area subject to the regulation of land transaction permission under Article 21-2 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is designated and publicly announced as the regulation area under the above Act, it is not necessary to obtain permission from the competent authority regarding the sale contract (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da49119, Nov. 23, 1993). According to the records, it can be known that the land of this case was publicly announced as the reported area as of December 17, 1984 and was designated and publicly announced as the land transaction permission area under Article 53 of the Public Notice of Construction Division only after May 4, 1990, since it is not necessary to obtain permission from the competent authority regarding the sale contract of this case which was already concluded before the land is designated and publicly announced as the land transaction permission area, the defendant is in the position of the person who is the subject of the crime of breach of trust.

In addition, the Farmland Reform Act does not completely prohibit the acquisition of farmland by non-farmers, and the proof by the office at the seat of the above Act does not constitute the requisite for the establishment of farmland sale, and thus, the sale contract, which is a bond contract, shall not be null and void because there is no certificate of farmland sale at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da28928, Nov. 9, 1993). The provisions concerning the reported area under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, as a regulatory law, do not deny the judicial effect of the contract for the contract that violates the duty to report (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da56575, Mar. 9, 1993). The argument in the grounds of appeal that the sales contract in this case is null and void on the grounds that the victim was not a farmer at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract, not a farmer, and

In addition, in light of the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the sales contract of this case is a contract for a condition precedent, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and thus, the sales contract of this case is null and void or null and void due to the lack of the condition

Therefore, the defendant still has the status of dealing with another person's business, who is the subject of the crime of breach of trust. Accordingly, the court below's decision that maintained the first instance court's decision by applying the so-called crime of breach of trust to the so-called "the subject of the crime of breach of trust" is reasonable. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the land transaction permission and the subject of breach of trust under the Act on the Utilization and Management

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)