A. In a case where a sale contract is concluded without permission from the competent authority for land transaction regulation zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, whether both parties are jointly obligated to apply for permission from the competent authority (affirmative), and whether there is any benefit to seek the performance of the duty to cooperate by the parties who do not cooperate in the procedure for permission (affirmative)

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, whether the party whose duty of cooperation was denied can refuse the duty of cooperation itself on the ground that it is impossible for the party whose duty of cooperation was denied to obtain a transaction permit from the competent authority on the land in dispute (negative)

A. Even if a contract is concluded without the permission of the competent authority on the land within the land transaction regulation zone under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the parties to the contract are obligated to cooperate with each other so that the contract can be completed as effective, except in the case where the contract is finally null and void, and the parties to the contract are jointly obligated to apply for the permission of the competent authority, and the other party who does not cooperate in the procedure of the application for the permission is entitled to seek for the performance of the duty of cooperation.

(b) In the case of paragraph (a) above, the Party complained against the duty of cooperation itself cannot refuse the duty of cooperation on the ground that it would not be able to obtain a transaction permit from the competent authority on the land in dispute.

(a)Article 21-3(a) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory;

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 642)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellant Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Suwon District Court Decision 92Na371 delivered on June 26, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the First Ground:

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the use of the land of this case as the site of gas station at the time of the sale contract for the land of this case can not be recognized as being the content of the sale contract or the effective requirements. The arguments are without merit.

With respect to the second ground:

Even if a contract is concluded without permission from the competent authority for the land within the land transaction regulation area under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, the parties to the contract are obligated to cooperate so that the contract can be completed as effective, except in the case where the contract is concluded to exclude or lock the permission from the beginning, and the contract is finally null and void. The parties to the contract are jointly obligated to apply for permission from the competent authority, and the other party who does not cooperate in the application procedure for permission in violation of this duty can seek the performance of the duty of cooperation (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243 delivered on December 24, 191). In this case, the party against whom the duty of cooperation is sought cannot refuse the duty of cooperation itself on the ground that the party cannot obtain the permission of transaction from the competent authority for the land in dispute.

The court below acknowledged the defendant's duty to cooperate with regard to the procedure for applying for land transaction permission, which is the seller of the land of this case, and, in addition, judged that it is not impossible to obtain land transaction permission for the land of this case, and ruled that the defendant's explanation rejecting the defendant's argument on this point is nothing more than an additional instruction, and thus, the argument on the lawsuit dealing with this point cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)