Whether a person who sold another person's real estate without the power of representation can not be permitted under the principle of no-competence or the principle of good faith to seek cancellation of registration by asserting that his act as an agent is null and void in the position of the owner after inheritance of the real estate.

If Gap sold Eul's real estate without the power of representation to Byung and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate, the sales contract is null and void, and the registration of ownership transfer is null and void. However, as Eul's unauthorized representative is obligated to perform the registration of ownership transfer of Byung's real estate under Article 135 (1) of the Civil Act, it is not permissible to claim for the cancellation of the registration or seek for the return of unjust enrichment due to the possession of the real estate by asserting that Eul's transfer registration of ownership, which has been completed in the future, was invalid because Eul's transfer of real estate from Eul is the owner at the time when it is possible for Gap to perform the registration of ownership transfer by inheritance of Eul and then the former owner is the owner at the time when he is possible to perform the registration of ownership transfer.

Articles 2, 135(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants Kim Jong-sub, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na32813 delivered on March 24, 1994

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. The court below held that: (a) the plaintiff, who was the plaintiff's son, who was distributed the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 under the Farmland Reform Act and repaid the price thereof, participated in the Korean War, and the life or death of the plaintiff was not clear; (b) on November 20, 1958, the plaintiff completed the repayment of the price on behalf of the above non-party 1; and (c) on June 18, 1963, the above non-party 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the above non-party 1; and (d) on December 20, 197, the plaintiff requested the Incheon District Court to declare the disappearance of the above non-party 1; and (e) the above non-party 1's heir was not entitled to the above non-party 1's sole property transfer registration under the name of the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2's heir was not entitled to the above non-party 1's right of ownership transfer registration under the above non-party 2's name.

2. According to relevant evidence and records, the fact-finding by the court below that the plaintiff sold each of the above real estate to the above non-party 3 and the non-party 2 is just, and there is no error of violating the rules of evidence or neglecting the exercise of the right of explanation, such as the theory of litigation.

3. If the facts are duly established by the court below, the plaintiff is obligated to perform the registration of ownership transfer for each of the above real estate as the non-party 1's non-party 3 and the non-party 2 who is the purchaser pursuant to Article 135 (1) of the Civil Act. Thus, at the time when it is possible for the plaintiff in such status to obtain the above real estate inheritance from the above non-party 1 and to perform the obligation to perform the above registration of ownership transfer, the plaintiff is the owner, and the former purchaser of each of the above real estate is the owner, and the original purchase of each of the above real estate was null and void by acting as the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's act of sale, claiming the cancellation of the registration or seeking the return of unjust enrichment from the possession of the above real estate is not permissible in violation of the principle of speech and good faith or the principle of trust and good faith. Therefore, there is no error in the judgment below.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)