The validity of a sale under the condition that the repayment of a loan is suspended on a person who is not subject to the Military Support Settlement Loan Act;

Even if a settlement property under the Military Support Settlement Loan Act is sold to a person who is not an applicable person before the repayment of the loan is completed, the sale under the condition that the completion of the repayment is suspended shall be valid.

Articles 8 and 9 (4) of the Act on the Settlement Loan for Persons Eligible for Military Support

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Sung-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Yu-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 76Na179 delivered on February 24, 1977

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case, which is a settlement property, under Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Settlement of Persons Eligible for Military Support, even if the plaintiff purchased the real estate, the sale contract of this case shall be deemed null and void pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the same Act. However, pursuant to Article 9 (4) of the same Act, the original Minister shall cancel the prohibition provided for in Article 8 of the same Act when the repayment of the settlement loan is completed and immediately take procedures for the registration of cancellation of the mortgage, and shall dispose of the real estate without referring to the prohibition of transfer, provision of security, or seizure of the settlement property after the most completion of the above repayment. Since the above prohibition provision appears to guarantee the repayment of the loan, it is clear that the sale and purchase of the settlement property under the condition to suspend the repayment is valid even if the loan is transferred, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above.

We examine the second ground for appeal.

The issue is that the judgment of the court below cannot be accepted because it did not appear to have been criticized due to the deliberation of evidence and the fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the court below.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)