The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff and each defendant.

When a lawsuit as to the so-called principal right under Article 197 (2) of the Civil Act has been ruled against the defendant by the final judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 4285Da189, Nov. 27, 1954). Thus, in this case, the judgment against the defendant in the original judgment shall not be deemed to fall under the judgment, and the defendant shall not be deemed to be the possessor in bad faith. In comparison with the original judgment according to the records, there is no evidence to recognize that the defendant had commenced possession of the real estate in bad faith from November 8, 1966, the starting date of possession of the real estate in this case. Accordingly, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim for the return of legal negligence as to the real estate in this case is just and there is no error in interpreting the law as to the possessor's bad faith and the legal interpretation of the present proposal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the defendant's attorney are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, the court below comprehensively adopted the evidence and concluded a contract for the transfer of business with the purport that the plaintiff company is engaged in manufacturing, processing, and selling agricultural medicine, agricultural machinery machinery, and chemical industrial medicine, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the representative director of the plaintiff company, at the time of incorporation of the defendant company, transferred the plaintiff company's whole property to the defendant 2, the promoters at the time of incorporation of the defendant company, and thus the defendant company's transfer of the plaintiff company's business body, and thus the defendant company is allowed to succeed to the plaintiff's business activity. This contract is different from the case of mere transfer of business property, and even though it goes through a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders under Article 434 of the Commercial Act, it was confirmed without the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, and therefore, the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 was legally null and void. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for the transfer of ownership and possession of the real property of this case, which is part of the sale object of this case to the defendant company.

In light of the records, the court below's decision or the fact-finding decision which led to the conclusion of the above decision is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the matters requiring a mistake of facts or a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders due to the violation of the rules of evidence against the existence of a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders as to the transfer of company's business assets, or in the absence of a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders as to the existence of a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, or in the

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)