[소유권이전등기말소][집16(2)민,227]
It can be seen that the sales contract for the property devolvingd pursuant to Article 21-3 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongingd to Jurisdiction has been cancelled.
Even if the payment of the remaining price for the property devolving upon the State and the judicial secretary entrusted with the registration thereof embezzled the payment of the remaining price and forged and registered the relevant documents and seals, the contract is to be rescinded immediately and later, since the payment is not actually made until March 31, 1965, and the contract is to be rescinded immediately. Therefore, it is impossible to make a different conclusion by making the deposit of the remaining price.
Article 21-3 of the Asset Disposal Act for Reversion
Korea
100 Ma30
Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2894 delivered on March 29, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2894 delivered on March 29, 1968
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal
According to the decision of the court below, the plaintiff sold 47,00 won to the non-party 1, who is the property belonging to the 195 May 22, 195. Since the plaintiff acquired the right from the non-party 1 as of February 12, 1962, the name of the purchaser was changed, and only 19,389 won was paid until 1962 and the remaining 27,611 won was not paid in installments, the defendant acquired the right and paid the remaining 27,611 won to the plaintiff around 1963 and the half expenses necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership were delivered to the non-party 3 who is a judicial assistant, and the non-party 3 did not pay the remaining amount to the plaintiff under the above 196 articles to the non-party 3 and the defendant did not pay the remaining amount to the plaintiff under the above 196 articles to the non-party 15 and the defendant did not pay the remaining amount to the plaintiff under the above 36196 articles 196.
Therefore, the reasoning of the original judgment is different, but it is reasonable to accept the plaintiff's claim for the principal case, and it is groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu