(b) The case holding that if an investment in kind is made by making an agreement to complete the transfer of ownership through the method of registration of transfer of ownership after its incorporation and such an investment in kind has been made through the procedures for the establishment of a company, the company shall acquire the ownership of real estate by the investment in kind unless stated in the articles of incorporation in the

C. Whether the court should always explain the purport of the evidence submitted by the parties to the evidence or determine whether the evidence should be preserved in the reasoning of the judgment (negative)

B. The case holding that, where Gap and Eul agree to jointly establish a company for the purpose of livestock farming business, etc., Eul shall invest in kind real estate, and Eul shall make an investment in kind, and if Gap agreed to complete the investment in kind by the method of registration of transfer of ownership pursuant to a sales contract between the company and Gap after the incorporation of the company, and thereafter make an investment in kind pursuant to the above agreement through the procedure prescribed for the establishment of a company, the above agreement for the investment in kind shall be deemed as an acquisition of property under Article 290 subparagraph 3 of the Commercial Act, and it shall be null and void unless it is stated in the articles of incorporation, on the grounds that the above agreement for the investment in kind constitutes an acquisition of property under Article 290 subparagraph 3 of the Commercial Act, and it constitutes an ex post incorporation under Article 375 of the Commercial

(c) The court does not always require the explanation of the gist of the evidence submitted by the parties regarding the evidence, and does not require a judgment on whether to accept the evidence in the reasons of the judgment.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The purchase and sale on August 27, 1980 on August 20, 1973, No. 1,418 square meters prior to the registration number 1,418 square meters, the receipt number on August 27, 1980 on the date of receipt of the registration, and June 20, 1973 on June 20, 197, shall be corrected to the sale on August 257, 1980 on the receipt date of the registration, No. 5257, Aug. 27, 1980; and the receipt number on August 27, 1980 on the date of receipt of the registration.

1. The court below acknowledged the following facts by adopting evidence. The deceased non-party 5 owned a lot of land on the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 4th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th 196th of the 1st of the 196th of the 3th of the 5th investment.

After recognizing the above facts, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the contract was null and void on March 1, 1969 between the non-party 4 and the non-party 5, on the premise that the non-party 1 was the representative director of the plaintiff company and the above non-party 5, but the non-party 5's purchase of the above non-party 5's land, including the land of this case, by the non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-6's non-party 9'

Article 290 subparagraph 3 of the Commercial Act provides that the type, quantity, and price of the property which was agreed to be acquired after its incorporation as one of the matters to be newly incorporated and the name of the transferor shall be effective upon entry in the articles of incorporation. In this case, the so-called "any agreement to acquire the property by transfer after the incorporation of the company" means a contract under which the promoters agree to acquire the property in the form of sale and purchase by other promoters, subscribers, or third parties on the condition of the incorporation of the company. Since the date of the preparation of the original articles of incorporation, a person who is not qualified as promoters entered into the above contract for the company to be incorporated in the future and thereafter becomes the promoters for the incorporation of the company, the above contract shall be null

In this case, the court below agreed on the establishment of the plaintiff company for the purpose of the joint livestock industry by the deceased non-party 5 and non-party 4 around February 1969, and the above non-party 5 invested in kind the real estate assessed as 5 million won in cash and the non-party 4 invested in the non-party 5 million won, but agreed on the completion of the investment in kind by the method of registration of transfer of ownership pursuant to the sales contract between the plaintiff company and the non-party 5 after the incorporation of the plaintiff company, and made the investment in kind pursuant to the above agreement after going through the procedure prescribed for the establishment of the company, the above agreement for the investment in kind constitutes the acquisition of the property provided for in subparagraph 3 of Article 290 of the Commercial Act as it is, and thus, it shall not be null and void unless it is stated in the articles of incorporation. On the other hand, although the investment in kind pursuant to the above method constitutes an ex post facto special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders as provided for in Article 375 of the Commercial Act.

As seen earlier, on March 11, 1969, the lower court recognized that the sales contract for the instant land was concluded between the Plaintiff Company and the deceased non-party 5, and thereafter, on March 18, 1968, a resolution was passed to ratification the said sales contract at the temporary general meeting of shareholders of the Plaintiff Company on March 18, 1969, and that there was a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders as above even on March 9, 1989. Accordingly, the lower court’s conclusion is justifiable since the registration of transfer of ownership for the instant land of

The above fact-finding process or judgment of the court below cannot be said to be erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, or Supreme Court precedents, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to ex post facto establishment, termination of contract, or resolution at the general meeting of shareholders. There is no reason to argue.

2. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the deceased non-party 5 evaluated the land in this case as KRW 5 million and invested the land in lieu of cash in the plaintiff company, which is null and void due to the rashness and experience of the above non-party 5, or in violation of social order. It did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts against the rules of evidence, the omission of judgment, or unfair legal act due to the violation of the rules of evidence.

3. According to the records, it is clear that the court below's decision in favor of the plaintiff, including the above part, is erroneous because it is confirmed that the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by a party member's remand judgment, and it is confirmed that the court below's decision in favor of the plaintiff again is erroneous.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the lower court’s judgment explicitly stated that the scope of the judgment is limited to the part against the Defendant in the judgment against the Defendant; and (b) Nonparty 112-1, a certified copy of the register of 1,428 square meters prior to the above ( Address 1 omitted); (c) did not appear as evidence; and (d) Nonparty 112-2, a certified copy of the register of 1,147 square meters at 1,147 square meters at 1,428 square meters at 1,428 square meters at 1,428 square meters prior to the remand-gun of the lower judgment’s judgment prior to the remand, which is the part against the Defendant, it is evident that the lower court’s above error was caused by the clerical error as above, i.e., the indication of 1,147 square meters at 2 square meters at 1,428 square meters prior to the remand-gun-gun of the lower judgment’s appeal against the Defendant.

In the end, the issue is nothing more than accepting the meaning of demanding the correction of the judgment of the party members.

4. Other issues or the purport of criticisming the fact-finding by the lower court cannot be said to be erroneous in the process of evidence preparation. Therefore, it is difficult to adopt the evidence preparation process.

The court does not always require the explanation of the purport of the evidence submitted by the parties regarding the evidence, and does not require the judgment on whether to accept the evidence in the reasons of the judgment. There is no reason to argue.

For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. Since it is obvious that real estate labeling No. 1 in the attached Table 5 of the judgment below is a clerical error, it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Yoon Young-young-dong Park Jong-ho Kim Jong-ho