The meaning of Article 4 (2) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging and the time when the Dormant Corporation loses its legal personality.

Section 2 of this article is a provision that does not have any relationship with the time when the Dormant Corporation loses its legal personality.

Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction (Abolition) and Article 8 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging

Gold YOGGE

Freeboard machines

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1118 delivered on June 10, 1965, Seoul High Court Decision 64Na118 delivered on June 10, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The gist of the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant-appellant is that although the original land was the original land and the disposition of distributing farmland to this original land was legitimate, the court below did not make an incomplete deliberation or committed an unlawful act of violating the reasoning. However, although the original judgment was invalid by lawful evidence, the farmland distribution was made in spite of the fact that the original land was not subject to the Farmland Reform Act as the original land from its original date, and the registration of the defendant's name, which was based on the premise that it is lawful, is legitimate, and the registration of the defendant's name is also null and void and void, and thus,

The gist of the Reasons for Appeal No. 2 is that this case's land is disposed of by the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State. Thus, the ownership of this case's land is owned by the plaintiff company despite the fact that the court below's judgment did not fully pay the purchase price. Thus, it is not erroneous for the plaintiff company to acquire the ownership of this case's land. The summary of the Reasons for Appeal No. 3 is that the plaintiff company is already dissolved pursuant to Article 8 (1) 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, and that 100% of the shares are owned by Japan, and the sale of this case's land is still owned by the plaintiff company to be disposed of by the plaintiff company's non-party No. 9, and the sale of this case's land is still disposed of by the plaintiff company's non-party No. 2, and it is still deemed that the sale of this case's land belongs to the State, as well as the sale of this case's land to the plaintiff company No. 96.

Therefore, there is no reason to see the appeal that is merely an argument about a legitimate original printing due to the opposing opinion. This appeal cannot be 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 judges pursuant to Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)