Under the agreement on registration of intermediate omission, the validity of registration of transfer of ownership made by the first seller in the future of the final buyer with the permission of land transaction between the final buyer and the first seller as a party (negative)

The parties who intend to enter into a contract for the sale of land located within a permitted area under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory shall jointly obtain permission from the competent authorities. If the first seller sells the land to the middle buyer and the middle buyer sells it in succession to the last buyer, the parties to each contract shall obtain permission for land transaction regarding each contract. Even if there exists an agreement between the parties to make a registration for the transfer of ownership by the last buyer, the agreement for the registration of omission is merely merely an agreement between the parties that the first seller would make a registration for the transfer of ownership from the last buyer for the convenience of the execution, on the premise that each contract for the transfer of real estate is valid if the real estate is sold in advance, and it does not mean that the first seller and the last buyer have entered into a contract for the transfer of ownership from the last buyer for the convenience of the execution, so even if the last buyer and the last buyer have completed the registration for transfer of ownership with the first buyer's land transaction permission, the registration of transfer of ownership under such last buyer's name is null

Articles 21-3 and 31-2 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 2(2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Current windows (Attorney Oe-Promotion et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Large-scale Construction Co., Ltd. (U.S.)

Supreme Court Decision 94Na40147 Delivered on July 14, 1995

Jeju District Court Decision 95Na887 delivered on May 2, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal (including the grounds for the supplement) are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff disposed of the land in this case on December 31, 1991 to receive the price and provided all documents necessary for the transfer of registration, and granted the power to act of disposal by issuing a certificate of personal seal impression for delegation of real estate sale issued on the same day. The plaintiff's assertion that the act of granting the above power to Kim Jong-soo is null and void in violation of good customs and other social order, or that the plaintiff's act is null and void due to the plaintiff's gambling, rashness, and in bad experience, it is proper that all of the plaintiff's assertion that it is null and void, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or any error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles due to incomplete deliberation. There is no ground for the argument.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, apart from the above, the plaintiff's granting of the right of representation to Kim Jong-soo, on December 31, 1991, Kim Jong-soo sold the land of this case on behalf of the plaintiff for 230,000 won, which is owned by the plaintiff, again sold the same price to the defendant on February 8, 1992, after delivery of the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer under the defendant's name such as a certificate of land transaction approval from the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff and the defendant did not directly sell the land for 139,84,000 won for the reason that the above permission was not obtained on February 21, 1992 with the permission of sale under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, and that the above permission of sale was not obtained on behalf of the plaintiff, but on the ground that the plaintiff's act of sale and purchase was invalid because it was against the law's maximum sale and purchase permission of this case without the plaintiff's permission of sale and sale.

However, in light of the records, the plaintiff's assertion is examined (refer to the plaintiff's preparatory document dated March 29, 1993 and June 24, 1994). The plaintiff's assertion, even if the defendant obtained land transaction permission from himself/herself and the plaintiff as a party to a sale and purchase and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the defendant's name, since the contract was not concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, it is reasonable to view that such registration of ownership transfer in the defendant's name includes the purport that it is null and void

However, the parties who intend to enter into a sale contract on the land located within the area subject to permission under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4572 of Aug. 5, 1993) shall jointly obtain permission from the competent authorities. If the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, sells it to the largest and sells it in succession to the Defendant, as duly recognized by the court below, the parties to each of the above sale contract should obtain permission for land transaction with the Plaintiff as the buyer and the largest and the Defendant as the buyer, and the Defendant should obtain permission for land transaction with the Plaintiff as the buyer and the Defendant as the final buyer. Even if there was an agreement on an interim omission of registration to make a registration of transfer of ownership directly from the Plaintiff, the first buyer, the first buyer, and even if there was an agreement on an interim omission of registration to make a registration of transfer of ownership on the first sale of real estate, each sale contract should be completed in the future, on the premise that each sale of real estate is valid, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the agreement between the Plaintiff 2 and the Defendant 96.

Therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's above assertion on the ground of its stated reasoning, although the court below should have made a decision on the validity of the registration of this case, since the registration of this case was made without obtaining legitimate permission for land transaction, and the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of this case in the name of the defendant is null and void, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the purport of the plaintiff's assertion or neglecting judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment,

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)