Cases where there is an error of misapprehending the legal principles on the invalidation of an administrative disposition;

The cancellation of a sales contract according to the decision of the Council on Appeal on Property Reversion can not be automatically null and void even if there is a defect in the cancellation.

63Nu200 delivered on April 22, 1965

Korea

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3470 delivered on November 21, 1967

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

With respect to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff performer:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff's notice of cancellation was delivered to the defendant on September 30, 1965 on the ground that the subject matter of this case was requisitioned property, but the Minister of National Defense, the requisition officer, permitted the sale of this case's land as of June 14, 1965, under the case that the requisition disposition will be cancelled as soon as possible. Thus, the plaintiff's defective sale disposition of this case's defects is cured. The plaintiff unilaterally delivered the original purchase contract as of September 28, 1965, and the cancellation of the sale contract between the defendant was determined to be a revocation disposition of invalidity as long as the cancellation disposition cannot be asserted.

However, according to the defendant's submission and the contents of Eul evidence No. 1 which the plaintiff recognized its establishment, if it is obvious that the original contract was revoked in accordance with the decision of the Council for Appeal of Property Belonging to the defendant, and if the revocation is in accordance with the decision of the Council for Appeal of Property Belonging to the defendant, even if there is a defect in the decision of the Council for Appeal, it may be null and void as a matter of course, and even if it is possible to cancel it (see this decision, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Nu200 delivered on Apr. 22, 1965). However, despite the fact that there is a defect in the decision of the Council for Appeal, it is impossible to reverse the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

Therefore, according to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)