The case holding that seeking removal, etc. of the building from the seller of the building against the buyer of the entire building is in violation of the principle of good faith.

Since it is reasonable to view that Gap allowed Eul to possess the site of the building Eul to sell the building for the purpose of allowing Eul to obtain the right of annual appeal against the ownership share of the State among the site, it is against the principle of good faith to remove the building and seek the delivery of the building site to Eul and Byung who succeeded to and acquired the right of disposal of the building.

Article 2(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da9299 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1910), 91Da9756, 9763 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2596), 93Da20986, 2093 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2412)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Incheon District Court Decision 92Na1933 delivered on August 13, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 (the non-party 1's original decision seems to be erroneous) purchased the site of this case from the non-party 2 on November 1, 1983 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff only on the site of this case (However, under the circumstances stated in its reasoning, some of the shares out of the site of this case were returned to the country where the original owner was the owner). On June 1991, the court below held that the non-party 3 purchased the building of this case from the non-party 3 on the ground of the non-party 1's intention to purchase the building of this case and purchased the building of this case on June 10, 199, the non-party 1 purchased the building of this case from the above non-party 3 on the ground of the principle of trust and good faith, and that the non-party 1 purchased the building of this case from the above non-party 3 to the above non-party 1 for the purpose of this case.

On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's decision which rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the sale and purchase of the building of this case between the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 3 is invalid as a false conspiracy or that it is conditional sale is not a evidence, is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

On the first ground for appeal

The court below erred by failing to determine the plaintiff's assertion (record 347 pages) that the defendant's purchase of the building of this case from the above non-party 4 actively participated in the above non-party 4's act of breach of trust and thus null and void against social rules. However, the circumstances pointed out by the theory of lawsuit alone cannot be deemed to have actively participated in the above non-party 4's act of breach of trust, and it is evident that the plaintiff's above assertion is dismissed because no materials can be found even if the records were examined. Thus, this error by the court below is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and it cannot be viewed as an error of law that constitutes the ground for reversal of the judgment. The argument also has no merit.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)