Whether or not a suit filed against a landowner by a person who has no right to purchase under the Land Development Promotion Act is an unjust suit

The act of filing a lawsuit against the landowner to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership and filing an appeal against the losing judgment with the knowledge that a person who does not have the right to claim purchase of the reclaimed land in accordance with the Land Clearing Promotion Act is not subject to the illegal lawsuit.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Lee Jong-ll et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Yong-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and three Defendants, Attorneys Kim Yong-nam, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na1184 delivered on April 25, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, when a person who has obtained permission for reclamation of State-owned undeveloped land completes construction works pursuant to Article 12 of the Land Reclamation Promotion Act, the court below shall submit an application for authorization of completion to the permitting authority within one month from the date of completion, and when the permitting authority in receipt of the above application has completed construction works without delay, it shall grant authorization of completion, and pursuant to Article 17 of the same Act, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall sell state-owned land which has obtained authorization of completion without delay to the person who has obtained authorization of completion. Thus, in order to obtain the right to purchase the land to obtain authorization of completion from the permitting authority in accordance with the above procedure, the defendants did not obtain authorization of completion from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the permitting authority in receipt of the above land. Thus, in light of the above facts that the defendants' claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the land owners under the premise that the above land owners were not in a position of action and thus, it can be easily seen that the above lawsuit against the defendants' losing right can be seen as unlawful in light of the records.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, in light of the records, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiffs filed an incidental appeal against the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance or reduced the purport of the claim, so there is no ground to hold that it is illegal to recognize that the amount of the claim exceeds the reported amount.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

According to the evidence No. 1-2 (Judgment) of No. 1-2 (the defendants jointly filed a lawsuit or appeal against the plaintiffs, the court below held that the defendants jointly filed an unfair lawsuit or appeal and the defendants jointly filed a joint lawsuit or appeal and held that they are jointly liable for damages to the plaintiffs in the purport that they constituted a joint tort, and that they are jointly liable for damages. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)