In the event that the transfer registration of ownership was passed through due to the absence of vested property, the legality of the cancellation of the contract, on the grounds of the revocation of the Act.

If there is any defect in this Act in the property devolving upon the State, it may be cancelled at any time within the limit of Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of this Act.

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office (Attorney Park Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Intervenor (Attorney Lee Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 65Gu22 delivered on December 28, 1965

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s legal representative and each of the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s legal representative are examined.

The court below found that the plaintiff 1 purchased the forest land which belongs to the original state from the government authorities in full, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on May 30, 1962 under the Seodaemun District Court registry No. 5585, and then sold some of the above (40/330) to the plaintiff 2 on June 5, 1964. Further, according to Article 5 of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging (Act No. 1346, May 29, 1963) that the sale contract was lawful, and that the above disposal of the plaintiff 1 was invalid on the ground that the sale contract was not concluded by the government authorities, and that the disposal of the plaintiff 1's property which belongs to the original state without compensation, and that the disposal of the plaintiff 1's property which belongs to the original state can not be revoked on the ground that the sale contract was revoked on the ground that it would belong to the property belonging to the original state without compensation, and that the remaining disposal of the plaintiff 1.

However, if there is a defect in the Act on the Disposal of Property devolving upon the State Property, an administrative agency may revoke it at any time within the limit provided for in Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property devolving upon the State Property, and since it cannot be revoked on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership was made in full and in the front of the person who received the non-payment of the property devolving upon the State Property, the court below erred in holding that the defendant's disposition of cancellation of the non-payment on this point was unlawful as an opposing opinion. In addition, according to the records, as the reasons for cancellation of the non-payment on this point, the lease of the forest land devolving upon the State Property to the Non-Party Incorporated Foundation is based on the report of false facts. The plaintiff's non-payment on the premise of this lease agreement is also the succession of the defects, the court below's decision on this case's submission of the legal brief and the defendant's 7th pleading submitted from the court below's pleadings (the defendant's submission of the legal brief as to this case's submission of evidence can not affect the conclusion.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman