2. Act of a violation of good public order and good public order

At the time of 1943, the land of this case was purchased from the land owner Gap for the purpose of maintaining a stable project in compliance with the food production policy of the Joseon Do governor's 1943, and the construction was completed by the government's partial subsidy and the subcontractor's contribution, and sold it to the plaintiff with the title of registration that Gap sold it to the plaintiff in double with the view of collecting water fees from the persons with the title of registration, and the plaintiff also purchased the land for the purpose of obtaining a wide interest by being aware of the fact that the land was not necessary for 60 dus, and the fact that the land was well known to the plaintiff that it would be detrimental to the plaintiff's individual ownership cannot be readily concluded as a invalid contract that violates the public order and good morals as stipulated in Article 90 of the former Civil Act.

Article 90 of the Gu Residents Act, Article 103 of the Civil Act

Lee Dong-bok

Lee Jong-soo et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 64Na1139 delivered on February 17, 1965, Daejeon High Court Decision 64Na1139 delivered on February 17, 1965

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

Upon review of the original judgment in 1943, the court below held that the plaintiff purchased the above land for the purpose of gaining a wide range from the plaintiff, who was the owner of the above land, for the purpose of maintaining a stable project in accordance with the colonial rule of the Joseon General at the time of 1943, since it was purchased from the non-party 1 who was the owner of the above land, the construction of the main building was commenced with some subsidies from the National Treasury and the part of the residents at the expense of the owner of the steel mon, and completed by the non-party 1, the ownership was lost by the non-party 1, but the registration was not yet transferred to the non-party 1, because the name of the original judgment was registered in the name of the non-party 1, but it was so long as the non-party 1 did not transfer the title of the land to the non-party 1, who was aware of the fact that the plaintiff's purchase of the above land was invalid by adding it to the non-party 1, which was in violation of the law.

The appeal by the plaintiff's attorney is eventually justified.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in the lower court in order to re-examine the case.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court