Effect where a person who first purchased the property devolving upon double non-payment fails to pay the price;

Even in cases of double selling of property devolving upon the original purchaser, the ownership still remains in the State if the purchase and sale of the second purchaser is not null and void. Therefore, if the second purchaser pays the price in full, the ownership shall be acquired.

Article 21-3 of the Asset Disposal Act for Reversion

69Da1207 decided Sep. 30, 1969 (Supreme Court Decisions 794Da160 decided Sep. 30, 1969; 17Third civils 160 decided Dec. 30, 196 and Article 1(23)1173 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Busan District Court (67Ga3407)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

(1) As to Defendant Republic of Korea of the first instance:

Defendant 1: (1); (2) on September 9, 1964, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in (1), (6); (3) on September 28, 1964, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer for each of the real estate listed in (2); (4) on December 25, 1961, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer for each of the real estate listed in [Attachment] List No. 1763, Jan. 30, 1965; (2) on December 29, 1964, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer for each of the real estate listed in [Attachment] List No. 1086; (3) on December 28, 1963, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer for each of the real estate listed in [Attachment] List No. 15301, Dec. 16, 1963; and (4) on the registration of transfer of ownership for each of the real estate mentioned in [Attachment]

(2) Litigation costs are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

The plaintiff purchased the above real estate in the separate list No. 1 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant 1 and No. 2. The plaintiff 2 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were unclaimed on February 28, 1957. The defendant 2 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were unclaimed on April 26, 1960. The plaintiff paid the above real estate in the separate list No. 30 to the defendant 2 and the defendant 5 and the remaining amount of No. 1 and the remaining amount of No. 30 were non-party 1 and the defendant 2 were non-party 1 and the defendant 4 were non-party 2 were non-party 1 and the defendant 6 were non-party 1 and the defendant 2 were non-party 2 were non-party 1 and the defendant 3 were non-party 6's non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 1 and the defendant 2 were non-party 1 and

Therefore, the first instance court's sales contract between Defendant 5 and Defendant 5 was identical to that of the plaintiff on February 28, 1957, which was entered into by the plaintiff on April 26, 1960, and thus, it is deemed double selling, but since the plaintiff failed to pay the purchase price, the ownership of the real estate is still deemed to be the defendant in the first instance court. Thus, the sales contract with Defendant 5, which was entered into later, cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, but one of the parties is at the place to be cancelled. However, since Defendant 5 paid the purchase price on August 25, 1960 during the existence of the above sales contract with the plaintiff, it shall be deemed that the defendant acquired the ownership of the real estate. Accordingly, since the purchase price was fully paid on September 28, 1963, it shall be deemed that the sale was concluded as of September 28, 196, it shall not be deemed that only the defendant 5 acquired the ownership of the real estate.

The plaintiff alleged that the first instance court's contract was cancelled on the ground of double selling against the defendant 5, and that the above contract was completely terminated on July 8, 1964 by the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the plaintiff. However, in the case where the transfer registration of ownership was completed upon the completion of the contract as mentioned above, the contract may not be rescinded on the ground of double selling, and since the contract was finalized after the ownership of the real estate became final and conclusive to the defendant 5, it shall not be deemed that the sales contract already cancelled to the plaintiff was paid in full or paid in full or that it shall not be deemed that it was in accordance with the above legal provisions. Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection based on the premise that it is unnecessary to determine the remaining issues is without merit, and thus, it shall be dismissed. However, since the original judgment is unfair with different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs, since it is revoked by Article 386 of the same Act and the original judgment is improper.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Ji-su (Presiding Judge)