According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the land located in Incheon City as a problem in this case was purchased by the government without fault while it was enforced, but it was not distributed to the plaintiff on August 30, 1962. On the other hand, the above land was designated as an urban planning road or residential area under the Urban Planning Act of January 20, 1962 and was excluded from the application of the Farmland Reform Act, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the land of this case against the original owner without knowing the above land ownership to the plaintiff. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the seller's land ownership at the time of this case's cancellation of the above sales contract and the plaintiff's claim for damages in lieu of its implementation was justified. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the seller's land ownership at the time of this case's conclusion that the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the land was not owned by the plaintiff.

In this regard, the part against the defendant among the original judgment is reversed, and the original judgment is ordered to be further examined. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court of Korea (Presiding Judge) shall be the red net shots and the white shots