Here is the translation:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of invalidity of real estate purchase and sale agreements and a mortgage agreement that were concluded without the knowledge and consent of the property owner.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
The court established that the purchase and sale agreements were concluded without the will of the true property owner, and thus are deemed not concluded. In this case, the court deviated from the previous practice of recognizing such agreements as invalid.
The court considers that the most effective method of protecting property rights is a vindication claim (property recovery), rather than declaring agreements invalid.
Regarding the mortgage agreement, the court noted that it is contestable, not void, and requires verification of the good faith of the acquirer.
3. Court Decision:
– Reject the request to declare purchase and sale agreements invalid
– Refer the case for new consideration regarding the recognition of the mortgage agreement as invalid
– Uphold the decision of the appellate court in all other parts
Key Innovation: The court essentially changed the approach to protecting property rights, recommending the use of a vindication claim instead of declaring transactions invalid.
