(2) The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

(3) Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

However, since the defendant's sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the above forest land was the price at a low price calculated annually by only the base price for rent in light of rash and non-experienceless experience, and the plaintiff was concluded in favor of this, this contract was null and void as an unfair act. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the sales contract was an unfair juristic act only on the ground that the sale of property at a price based on the lease standard set up by the defendant himself to rent the property is salt rather than the actual price (as seen below, about 1/4 of the market price at the time as seen below), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the above contract was concluded because the non-party 2 was rash and non-party 2 was rush or non-party 2, or the plaintiff was cretly. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant cannot be found to have completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above forest land to the non-party 1, the defendant should have returned to the plaintiff the obligation to transfer the ownership of the above land to the non-party 1, or there is no proof of any justifiable reason to cancel or cancel the above sale and purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, so the above sale and purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant becomes impossible due to a reason attributable to the defendant, and the defendant is liable to compensate for damages arising therefrom. In this case, if it is obvious that the plaintiff is unable to perform his own obligation and it becomes impossible for the plaintiff to acquire the ownership of this land due to the non-party 1's failure to perform his own obligation, even if the plaintiff fails to perform the remaining amount as his own obligation (the unpaid amount should be deducted), it shall not affect the above conclusion, so it shall not affect the above conclusion.

Therefore, we examine the scope of damages that the defendant is liable for.

In other words, the plaintiff could have acquired the ownership of the above land if the above purchase and sale contract was implemented as agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendant, that is, the market price as of December 27, 1963 at the time when the above sale and sale contract became impossible. In full view of the witness non-party 2's testimony (excluding the portion not trusted later) witness non-party 3's testimony, the above land was newly incorporated into the Seoul Special Metropolitan City administrative district as of November 21, 1962 as of November 21, 1962, and the price of the above land was increased rapidly compared to the previous five times, and the price of the above land was increased rapidly by 10 times compared to that of other districts, and the price of the above land was 504,000 won at the market price as of September 9, 1963 as of December 19, 196, which was determined by the non-party 2's appraisal and sale price of the above land was 90 won at the market price as of the above land.

Therefore, the announced price of the above Minister of Finance and Economy was less than 40 days prior to October 21, 1963, which was the date when the appraisal base date of Non-party 2 was due to non-party 2's failure to pay 34,614 won to the defendant due to the defendant's non-performance (as seen in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of Non-party 3's testimony, it is also known that the situation where the land price was affected for the 1,200 months prior to the date when the appraisal base date of Non-party 2 was due to Non-party 3's non-party 3's testimony was assessed as 15 won per square day between the 67 days prior to the defendant's non-performance and the 1,09,386 won per square day after deducting it from the price at the above recognized market price.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay under civil law in accordance with the rate of five percent per annum from April 17, 1966 to the date following the day when the plaintiff was delivered a gold 1,099,386 won to the defendant, which is the day when the main gushe is made up to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's principal claim is well-grounded within this limit and the remainder is dismissed without merit. Thus, the court below's judgment with different conclusions is revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are to be borne by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 96, 92, and 89

Judges Lee Tae-ho (Presiding Judge)