1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Declaration of invalidity of a non-residential premises sale and purchase agreement concluded between a service cooperative and an individual, due to the infringement of the plaintiff’s rights as the construction developer.
2. **Core arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court departed from its own previous position, set forth in a series of cases, where declaring a transaction invalid (rescissory claim) was considered an appropriate method for protecting the rights of a construction developer.
– The Court emphasized that the construction developer is the primary holder of property rights; however, the method of protection must correspond to the legal nature of the relationship.
– Declaring a chain of agreements invalid is an ineffective method of protection, as it does not resolve the issue of property possession and may unjustifiably infringe upon the rights of bona fide purchasers.
– A proper and effective method of protection in such cases is a vindicatory claim (recovery of property from another’s unlawful possession) combined with the recognition of property rights.
– Since the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protection (declaring the agreement invalid instead of recovering the property), this serves as an independent ground for dismissing the claim.
– The Court also took into account that the plaintiff had already achieved their goal in other judicial proceedings (renewal of the land lease and receipt of the facility readiness certificate), which confirms the lack of necessity to declare the disputed agreement invalid.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim, while modifying its reasoning part.
