Cases of misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of an ownership and a loan for use;

Cases where there are errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of ownership and loan agreement for use.

Article 609 of the Civil Act

School Foundation Yongnam Germany (Attorney Go Jae-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

A school juristic person sub-public educational institute (Attorney Lee Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 65Na444 delivered on April 19, 1966

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

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

In its explanation, the original judgment stated that Gap's 3-1 and 2 testimony of non-party 1 and Eul who has no dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff's building Eul's testimony and the whole purport of the arguments by the court below Eul, and that the Korea Foundation for the Maintenance of Diplomatic Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the "U.S. Foundation") has no right to request renewal of the plaintiff's building's articles of incorporation for reasons of non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's.

However, evidence Nos. 3-2 (Contract) cited by the original judgment of March 15, 1963 is nothing more than a loan agreement for use on the above real estate concluded between the non-party foundation and the non-party foundation, which was the owner of the real estate stated in the 2 and 3th list attached to the original judgment. According to the evidence Nos. 9-1 and 11 (each certified copy of the register) where the original judgment is not rejected, the foundation of the non-party missionary foundation, as of July 21, 1964, donated the above real estate to the non-party foundation, which is the general foundation of the plaintiff, and the non-party foundation, transferred the above real estate to the non-party foundation, which is the non-party foundation, and the ownership transfer registration of the above real estate was completed on July 31, 1964. It is clear that the plaintiff's right to use the real estate and the right to use the real estate should be removed without the consent of the court of law on the above real estate ownership of the non-party foundation and the non-party foundation.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge)