Here is the translation:
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a non-residential premises purchase and sale agreement, concluded between spouses during divorce without the consent of one of the spouses.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
The Supreme Court changed previous judicial practice, indicating that the most effective way to protect property rights is not invalidating contracts, but directly claiming the property. The Court emphasized that the owner can claim the property from the last acquirer regardless of the number of previous resales. The Appellate Court erroneously declared the contract invalid, without considering that at the time of case consideration, the property had already been divided and resold to other persons.
3. Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the appellate court’s decision regarding the invalidation of the purchase and sale agreement, modifying the reasoning part of the first instance court’s decision.
