Since the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor or the Do Governor stipulates that a purchaser of state-owned land may acquire the right after obtaining permission from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor or the Do Governor, the purchaser of state-owned land can be notified of the transfer contract valid between the purchaser and the individual

Since the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor or the Do Governor requires that a purchaser of State-owned land may acquire the right after obtaining permission, the purchaser of State-owned land may enter into a contract for transfer in a valid manner with an individual on the condition that permission from the authority is suspended.

Article 17 of the Land Clearing Promotion Act (Closure)

Plaintiff

Suwon Construction Corporation

Seoul Central District Court Decision 68Na669 delivered on December 3, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the Defendant

In full view of the facts stated in the original judgment and the parties concerned, the Plaintiff’s existing decision was justifiable in finding that there was no dispute between the parties to the above transfer of state-owned land and the non-party 1’s acquisition of land under the provisions on the transfer of state-owned land reclamation agreement or the transfer of land to the non-party 1. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of the land under the provisions on the transfer of land to the non-party 2.290 won for the non-party 1’s sale of forest land under the agreement on the transfer of land from the non-party 1 to the non-party 2.290 won for the non-party 1’s acquisition of the land and the non-party 1’s purchase of the land under the previous provisions on the transfer of land to the non-party 1’s acquisition of the land under the agreement on the transfer of the non-party 1’s ownership and the non-party 1’s acquisition of the land under the premise that the transfer of the land to the non-party 1’s original owner and the non-party 1’s acquisition of the ownership agreement.

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The appeal may not be adopted as a waiver of legitimate fact-finding by the court below, such as the above mentioned.

Determination on the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 6;

The court below did not err in finding that the notice of cancellation of a contract for the partnership of the lawsuit was a false representation which was sealed between the defendant and the non-party 1, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the fact-finding of the court below.

The judgment on the ground of appeal No. 4

It is reasonable that the court below recognized the authenticity of No. 7-1 or No. 7-12 by the testimony of the non-party 3 (original trial). Therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss the appeal.

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 5

Upon examining the original judgment, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the lower court’s petitioning the authorities to extend the period of completion of the reclamation project on the ground that the instant land reclamation project was not anticipated other than the expected construction project; and (b) continued to perform the reclamation project without being subject to the disposition of revocation on the de facto permission for the reclamation project even after the lapse of

It cannot be said that there is an error of mistake in fact-finding.

Determination on the grounds of appeal Nos. 7 and 8;

All appeals can not be adopted to criticize the legitimate fact-finding of the court below and the choice of evidence preparation.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon