beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Notwithstanding the fact that both the first sale contract and the second sale contract concluded between the Defendant and the first seller and the second sale contract between the Defendant and the buyer, which were concluded between the Defendant and the first seller, were not concluded to exclude land transaction permission from the beginning, and thus are not final and conclusive, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and acquitted
2. Determination
A. Article 2(2) of the Act provides that where a person who entered into a contract with the owner of a real estate subject to a violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate enters into a contract with a third party for the transfer of ownership on or before the date stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate (hereinafter “Act”), the said person shall file an application for the transfer of ownership pursuant to the first contract within the prescribed period of time.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do538, Apr. 25, 2000). On the other hand, a contract for land transaction within a permitted area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall take effect only with the permission of the competent authority and shall be null and void in principle before obtaining the permission. However, a contract which is concluded on the premise that the permission is granted shall take effect retroactively upon obtaining the permission. However, if a contract is entered into on the premise that the permission is granted, it shall be null and void finally if it
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243, Dec. 24, 1991). B.
Judgment
In light of the above legal principles, we examine the reasons why the court below properly explained, and comprehensively examine all the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, and then examine the forest of this case between the defendant and the first seller C.