The appeal on the part other than the above shall be dismissed.

The court below acknowledged that the 114-3 Hobbe(285-1 site prior to the confirmation of land substitution) of Seodaemun-gu 126-9 (the 526-9 in the original judgment seems to be the error of 126-9) of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul and the 126-9 site was owned by the plaintiff and the non-party Republic of Korea, and found that the 15-7bbebbebebbes in the attached Form 1 (f) of the original judgment among the same site was owned by the plaintiff, and that the 15-7bbebbes in the attached Form 1 (f) of the original judgment among the same site was stored in the same tin, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff was in possession of the same site and therefore, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff was in possession of the above part of the site as the defendant, even if the plaintiff was using the above 15-7bbebbes in the above part of the site, the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant.

If so, it cannot be said that the original judgment contains any illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence, lack of reasons, contradiction in reasoning, and incomplete hearing, and therefore there is no reason to discuss the theory of lawsuit.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal (1) and the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney involved.

The court below, based on evidence, determined that the sale and purchase of the above property belongs to 124.41/24 in the name of the non-party 2, for which the non-party 2 had no ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 had no ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party 28. The non-party 2 had no ownership ownership transfer registration under the non-party 3's name for the non-party 9. The non-party 2 had no ownership transfer registration under the non-party 4's own name for the non-party 9. The non-party 2 had no ownership transfer registration under the non-party 4's own name for the non-party 9. The non-party 2 had no ownership transfer registration under the non-party 4's own name for the non-party 9. The non-party 2 had no ownership transfer registration for the non-party 9. The non-party 2 had no ownership ownership attribution for the non-party 2's new ownership for the non-party 9.

However, the above conditions of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State may serve as a reason for the competent authorities to determine whether to allow a contract for the renewal of property devolving upon a person to whom a right has been transferred by the purchaser of property devolving upon the purchaser, as long as the pertinent authorities entered into a contract for renewal with the person to whom the right has been transferred by the purchaser of property devolving upon the purchaser and the purchaser's name has been changed under the involvement of the competent authorities, even if the transferor of the right has not fully paid the price due, it does not have any ground to regard the change of the purchaser's name as a legal invalidation as a matter of law. Such interpretation also conforms to the purpose of protecting the subsequent purchaser after the change of the purchaser's name. Therefore, the previous precedents of the State, which

Therefore, the original judgment is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the change in the name of the purchaser of the property devolving upon the ownership, and it is not necessary to determine the other issues, and the appeal by the plaintiff's attorney on this point is reasonable, and there is no reason to answer

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal as to the site portion 126-7 of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-dong 126-9 is dismissed, and the part against the Plaintiff as to the site portion 126-7 of the same Dong is reversed, and the part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)