(2) The costs of the above appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(3) The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding the claim for damages is reversed, and that part is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

In full view of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 (Written Answer), Eul evidence Nos. 3 (Written Evidence of Land Register), and Gap evidence Nos. 7 (written Copy of Land Register), the defendant, on June 19, 1960, conducted a survey and confirmation of approximately 70 square meters of land at issue in the instant case, but a certain amount of square meters was subsequently conducted and confirmed. The defendant can be found to have conducted a survey of approximately 110 square meters of land to be used by himself over two times on September 24, 1960 and November 8, 1960. Thus, the plaintiff also recognized that the defendant needs 10 square meters, and the defendant's highest payment of the remaining amount equivalent to the above average amount to the defendant on February 20, 1961 to the effect that the above highest sale contract of the plaintiff was made by the last day of February 20, 1961, and therefore, it is insufficient for the defendant to cancel the above land sales contract.

According to the records, the court below's above documentary evidence was examined and there is no evidence to deem that there was a fact-finding favorable to evidence, such as evidence.

The judgment of the court below does not contain an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the cancellation of the contract. The court below ruled that the highest procedure is unnecessary to cancel the contract, but the original adjudication does not do so. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which is erroneous and developed is without merit.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is without merit.

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

According to the argument, the defendant, at the time of purchasing the land of this case, paid 20,000 won to the plaintiff as down payment amounting to 50 square meters, so the part relating to 50 square meters among the subject matter of sale in this case is considered to have been completed, so the court below erred in applying the customary law on the sale of unit price for the portion of 50 square meters as to the above 50 square meters part of the common law in trade.

Furthermore, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's claim to remove the above building even though 5/7 of the total price of the base of the building was already received by the plaintiff and only 2/7 of that part remains, the plaintiff's claim to remove the building is not a violation of good faith or an abuse of the right to terminate the contract.

However, if the records are newly examined, it does not seem that the defendant alleged the same reasons as the argument and attacked at the fact-finding court. If so, not only can it be said that the appellant asserted only in the final appeal, but also it would be reasonable to regard the original defendant as the down payment for the value of the entire land (10 square meters) that the defendant wants to die anywhere, according to the facts duly established by the court below, it is difficult to regard the above money as the down payment for the total value of the original land (110 square meters). In this case, it is difficult to regard the above money as the sale (50 square meters) price for the land corresponding to it. From this point, it is justifiable that the court below did not judge the existence and application of the customary law as mentioned above.

Therefore, this paper will not be accepted.

(3) On the third ground for appeal:

According to the arguments, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff expressed his intention to cancel the purchase and sale contract of the land to the defendant on November 21, 1960 by the evidence No. 3, but the court below did not find the above facts.

Therefore, this paper is without merit, which is developed on the premise that the court below recognized the above facts.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to accept the argument that the expression of the contract rescission which is returned should be seen as an expression of intention which is not advanced. The judgment of the court below is not a misunderstanding of the civil law, incomplete hearing, or non-compliance with the reasoning of the judgment.

(4) On the fourth ground for appeal:

The court below's explanation that the defendant's claim for the payment of damages against the plaintiff's possession and use of the land of this case is accepted that "in the case of lending state property to the general public in accordance with Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, the rent for the land used for purposes other than farming is at least 6 percent per annum of the market price, and this is deemed to have been used as one standard material in the case where the amount of rent cannot be calculated as in this case." However, the above standard should be based only on the calculation of rent for state property or rent for the land of this case, such as the land of this case, it is reasonable to view that there is no sufficient evidence to serve as the basis for the calculation of rent for state property or rent for the use of non-state property. Accordingly, the court below erred in recognizing damages with 1,680 won per year against the defendant without any reasonable evidence.

This paper is reasonable.

Therefore, the appeal concerning the removal of buildings and the request for the delivery of the base of the judgment of the court below shall be dismissed as it is groundless, and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

In addition, the part against the Defendant regarding the claim for damages among the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and this part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall transfer red net income