2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 29,887,00 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from December 31, 1987 to the date of this decision, with an annual interest rate of 25% from the next day to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport of the defendant's appeal is as set forth in the Disposition 1 and 3.

The plaintiff asserts that the contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff has a duty to suspend the remaining forest land except for the forest land of this case purchased by the defendant from among the above forest land before the division according to the agreement under the above sales contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for the expenses incurred in cultivating the remaining forest land portion as a compensation for the delay of the defendant's above payment, and the plaintiff is liable to compensate for the compensation for the losses incurred in cultivating the above remaining forest land portion as a result of the above delay of performance. The plaintiff asserts that the compensation amounting to 71,694,000 won is required, and the above agreement is filed for payment of the 59,774,000 won and its delay damages. The defendant asserts that the above agreement is a matter related to the state's accounting

Therefore, I will first examine whether the above agreement on the growing land of the remaining forest land between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4 and the Plaintiff has an effect on the Defendant, the State.

As seen earlier, the agreement that the above portion of the above forest land excluded from the sale and purchase is naturally anticipated to be cultivated by the National Treasury for the implementation of the agreement. As such, Articles 5, 56, and 58 of the Budget and Accounts Act and Article 3 of the Rules on the Management of Financial Officials, the above agreement may be concluded within the budget allocated to the treasurer who is entrusted by the head of the central government agency to the public official who is entrusted with the sale and purchase of the above forest land. However, the agreement that the above portion of the above forest land excluded from the sale and purchase can be concluded by the above portion of the above forest land to the non-party 1. The non-party 2 signed a new sale and purchase agreement to the non-party 3 with the above public official who is the director of the central government agency on the non-party 2's delivery and sale of the forest land is also subject to the provisions of Articles 70-4 and 70-6 of the Budget and Accounts Act, and it is inevitable to enter the above agreement in the sale and purchase contract with the plaintiff (see Article 12 of the above free contract).

According to the above facts, the agreement that the above supplier has made an incidental contract to the contract of the forest of this case, which is excluded from the sale of the forest of this case before the division, to cultivate the remaining areas of the forest of this case. However, for the implementation of the above agreement, considerable National Treasury expenses are expected (as a result of the appraisal of the original appraiser's appraisal in subparagraph 1, it seems that the above supply station does not allocate the budget, and the above supply station does not have any allocated the budget), the above agreement shall also meet the form prescribed in the Budget and Accounts Act in preparing the contract, and shall obtain the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries along with the sales contract of the forest of this case. Since the above agreement does not meet the above procedure and form, it cannot be deemed that the agreement has been concluded between the plaintiff and the above non-party 2, who is the financial commissioner, on the basis that the above agreement has not been effective for the defendant. Therefore, the above argument by the plaintiff is groundless.

In addition, even if the plaintiff did not have the authority to conclude the above agreement with the above non-party 2, the above non-party 2 was granted the right to purchase the building site for the above supply plant as the finance officer and the above non-party 2 believed that the above non-party 2 had the authority to conclude the agreement with the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff believed that the above non-party 2 had the authority to conclude the agreement with the plaintiff in trust with the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant cannot deny the validity of the above agreement. As seen above, the above agreement has the authority to conclude the contract within the budget amount allocated as the finance officer of the National Seed Supply Center. However, even if the above agreement was concluded in the process of purchasing the forest of this case before entering into the sales contract in a fixed manner, the above agreement was made in the process of signing the agreement with the non-party 2 as a finance officer, and the above non-party 2 had no authority to enter into the above agreement with the plaintiff as the non-party 2's general officer of the above non-party 2, who signed the above agreement and signed the above agreement.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case based on the premise that the above agreement is effective shall be dismissed because it is no longer necessary to determine the defendant's claim in this case, and therefore, the part of the defendant's failure in the original judgment, which partially different conclusions, is unfair, so the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed without merit, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the

Judges Lee Yong-hoon (Presiding Justice)