B. In order to determine whether the sale and purchase of the land between Company A and Company B is null and void by taking place as a means to avoid the regulation of the Commercial Act on investment in kind, whether such sale and purchase is an acquisition of the property by promoters (Article 290 subparagraph 3 of the Commercial Act) or an ex post facto incorporation by the representative director of the Company after the incorporation of the Company (Article 375 of the Commercial Act) shall be examined, and the determination of the invalidity shall be made by examining whether such sale and purchase satisfies the valid requirements.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The litigation costs incurred by the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) Since a sales contract is null and void for a corporation which is unable to acquire farmland under the Farmland Reform Act to purchase farmland, the registration of the name of the corporation made on the ground of such sale shall be null and void. In this case, it cannot be viewed that the sale is valid on the ground that there was proof of the office at the location of the farmland under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act at the time of the sale.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the registration under the name of the plaintiff was null and void, where the plaintiff company purchased the farmland in this case from the non-party 1, and made it. There is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles

At the time of registration of the Plaintiff’s name, whether there was an agency’s proof of the location of the provision of Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act shall not be deemed to have any effect on the validity of registration in the Plaintiff’s name since the Plaintiff Company, which was not entitled to acquire farmland, purchased the said farmland and completed the registration, did not examine and determine whether the registration in the Plaintiff’s name was invalid, and it shall not be deemed that there was an error of incomplete deliberation or omission

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff company purchased farmland in the original market as a condition to suspend the siteization, and it is just in the judgment of the court below as above, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

As long as the above measures of the court below are justified, it is clear that it is not necessary to determine the legitimacy of the decision because the part as to whether the farmland was not converted into a site due to the interference of the non-party 1 does not affect the result of the decision. Thus, it is clear that there is no reason to determine the legitimacy of the decision.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, who was the defendant's deceased father, decided to contribute only the above right to use the land of this case at the time of the establishment of the plaintiff company, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff company forged relevant documents and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the above land. Thus, the court below's examination of the evidence cooking process which was conducted in accordance with the records is just and there is no violation of

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above non-party 1 was originally owned by the non-party 1. On February 1969, the non-party 1 agreed to establish a company with the non-party 2 with the purpose of raising the livestock industry of KRW 10,00,000 by investing the funds jointly with the non-party 2. The non-party 2 agreed to assess the amount of KRW 5,00,000 in cash and to contribute ownership to the non-party 1's own land including the land in this case as 5,00,000 in an investment in kind. On March 7, 1969, the above non-party 2 and the non-party 1 et al. were al. of the above 0 promoters to acquire the above 00,000 won in the name of the non-party 1's company's investment in kind, and thus, the non-party 2's general meeting and the board of directors held the above non-party 1's investment in kind.

However, if the relationship between the plaintiff company's acquisition of the land of this case is as determined by the court below, the acquisition of the land of this case by the plaintiff company is not caused by the investment in kind by the above non-party 1, but caused by the sale between the plaintiff company and the above non-party 1, and the defendant's assertion also is null and void as it is an act committed as a means to avoid the application of the regulation of the Commercial Act on investment in kind, and thus the registration in the name of the plaintiff company was made for this reason is null and void. Therefore, in order to determine the validity of the act of causing the plaintiff company's acquisition of the land of this case, it is necessary to examine and determine

The facts of the judgment of the court below alone are that the sale and purchase between the plaintiff company and the non-party 1 was made by the promoters of the plaintiff company before the plaintiff company's incorporation, and it is unclear whether it was made by the representative director of the plaintiff company after the plaintiff company's incorporation. However, in case of the former, the sale and purchase act shall be deemed to be an ex post facto incorporation under Article 375 of the Commercial Act. Thus, in order to determine the validity of the sale and purchase act, first of all, the sale and purchase act shall be deemed to be an effective establishment under Article 375 of the Commercial Act, and then the determination shall be made after examining who was made by the plaintiff company and the non-party 1 whether it was an acquisition of property or an ex post facto establishment. Thus, in this case where the sale and purchase of the land of this case between the plaintiff company and the non-party 1 are dealt with without examining the legal nature and the valid condition of the above purchase and sale, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above act of investment in kind between the non-party 1 and the above.

3. Therefore, without proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant, the part against the defendant in the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal is without merit. The costs of appeal dismissed are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-Ba (Presiding Justice)