[광업권이전등록][집11(1)민,285]
In the event that another person sells the right to acquire, it is necessary to judge whether the buyer knew that the right belongs to the seller at the time of the contract and reject the buyer's claim for damages from the seller without examining whether or not the buyer knew that the right belongs to the seller.
In the case of transfer of the right to acquire another person, the buyer's right was not known to the transferor at the time of the contract and the buyer's claim for damages against the seller was rejected without examining and determining whether the right was not known to the transferor at the time of the contract.
Article 507 of the Civil Act, Articles 126 and 393 of the Civil Procedure Act
Taedong Industrial Company
Kim Jong-tae
Seoul District Court Decision 61Na1053 delivered on December 21, 1962
the original judgment shall be reversed.
The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are as shown in the supplementary appellate brief attached thereto, and the answer by the defendant's attorney shall be as stated in the answer attached in the front and rear.
The gist of the ground of appeal No. 1 is that the original judgment is not the sale and purchase of the right to apply for a mining area itself, but it is not the reason why the defendant concluded that the mining area sales contract of this case has no validity on the premise that the defendant had procedural defects in the procedure through the registration of mining right in his own name, despite the fact that the defendant and the non-party 1 et al. entered into an agreement to transfer the mine filed in the name of the non-party 2 and the non-party 1
The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages on the premise that the Plaintiff purchased the mining area from the Defendant to 200,000,000, and registered the establishment of the mining right under the name of the Defendant solely under the name of the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff would have been unable to register the transfer of the mining right under the name of the Defendant’s responsibility. The lower court, based on evidence, found the Plaintiff to have applied for the establishment of mining rights (No. 2,046) to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy (No. 2,046) as of March 27, 1948 as the first place of the Plaintiff’s principal mining area as of March 27, 195, on the premise that the Plaintiff would have been unable to register the transfer of the mining area under the name of the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff purchased the mining area under the agreement between the Defendant to register the transfer of the mining right under the name of the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff would not be able to obtain the Plaintiff’s right to acquire the right of the first place of appeal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right to purchase and sale of the right was invalid.
It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in order to omit any judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal and to have the original court re-examine the case.
The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the two Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall have the highest leapbal leaps