(a) Reversion of ownership in case where the price therefor is paid after purchasing the land which is the State property under the Land Clearing Promotion Act;

(b) Validity of a sales contract for an object owned by another person;

A. In a case where a parcel of land, which is State property, was purchased from the Republic of Korea through the Land Clearing Promotion Act and was fully repaid the price, the purchaser would legally acquire the ownership of the land regardless of whether it was registered or not.

B. Even if a specific subject matter of sale is owned by another person, it cannot be deemed that the sales contract is an invalid contract, the purpose of which belongs to the original impossibility of performance.

(a) Article 29(2)(b) of the Land Clearing Promotion Act (Law No. 1028, Feb. 22, 1962);

B. Supreme Court Decision 77Da2290 delivered on April 24, 1979 (Gong1979, 11940) 93Da2445 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong193, 2611)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Korea

Gwangju High Court Decision 92Na7718 delivered on March 31, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

The court below acknowledged the following facts: the land of this case was originally reverted to the defendant; on December 31, 1964 based on the Land Clearing Promotion Act, the defendant sold the land of this case to the non-party 1; on May 30, 1970, and he paid the purchase price to the non-party 2; on March 30, 1970, the defendant did not know the above contents; on March 31, 1971, the non-party 1 sold the land of this case to the non-party 2 on December 30, 1973 and received the full payment of the purchase price; on June 28, 1989, the defendant notified the non-party 2 of the fact that the sale contract of this case was due to mistake; and on June 28, 1989, the contract was completely cancelled to the non-party 1 and the defendant cannot be sold the land of this case to the non-party 2 as the purchase price for each of the above land, and thus, the contract was completely discharged to the plaintiffs' rights.

However, according to the records, each of the lands of this case was registered as owned by Nonparty 3, Japan before August 15, 1945, and was registered as owned by Nonparty 1, the title of which belongs to the name of the defendant state (see Evidence 1-2, No. 1, No. 2-2, and No. 1, No. 2-2), and the defendant state purchased each of the above lands from Nonparty 1, No. 2, etc. on December 31, 1964 through a decision of nationalization, and then sold them to the above Nonparty 1, No. 2, etc. (see Evidence 5-4, No. 5, No. 5). Accordingly, the court below recognized that the above land of this case was legitimately sold to Nonparty 1, etc. under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to which the above land belongs, and determined that each of the above land was legitimately acquired from Nonparty 1, etc., regardless of whether the ownership of each of the above lands was reverted to the defendant's ownership or not.

In addition, even if a specific subject matter of sale falls under another person's ownership, the sales contract cannot be deemed as a contract for invalidation for the purpose of its original purpose, such as the theory of lawsuit. In addition, in this case where the defendant already sold the land to the above non-party 1, etc. and disposes of the land legitimately transferred to the plaintiffs and then he cannot acquire the ownership of the land and transfer it to the plaintiffs, the seller's warranty liability is held that the occurrence of the damage of this case caused by the cancellation of the above sales contract is nothing more than that of the plaintiffs, as alleged in the theory of lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs were judged against the judgment of the constructive confession in the claim lawsuit, such as cancellation of registration for the restoration of ownership by the above non-party 1, etc., and therefore the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)