If a purchaser of so-called right of reply from a defect in the property devolving upon the State has cancelled the contract under the name of a defect due to his or her fault, it cannot be argued that he or she purchased the right of reply against the defect even if he or she again received the property devolving upon the defect.

If the purchaser of the so-called right of reply from the person who has purchased the right of reply from the person who has purchased the right of reply from the person who has not received the property devolving upon the property, has the right of reply cancelled due to the cause attributable to him, it cannot be argued that he purchased the right of reply against the defect even if he has received the property

Article 21 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 68Na227 delivered on December 20, 1968

We reverse the original judgment.

this case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the original judgment, the court below found the following facts. In other words, while the plaintiff paid the purchase price of the original building site, which is the original property devolving upon the plaintiff, the defendant purchased the building on the original building site and the building site on July 1955, including the so-called annual interest rate, which can acquire ownership in the future since the plaintiff paid the purchase price in full, and the defendant paid the purchase price in the name of the plaintiff's authority, which is defective, and the contract under the above plaintiff's name was revoked because the defendant did not pay the unpaid price within the specified period, and the plaintiff paid the unpaid price in full and paid the unpaid price of the building site on March 29, 1967, and the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the plaintiff on May 18, 1967. The court below held that the defendant was unlawful as a negligence by the defendant's possession since he purchased the right of annual interest on the building site as legitimate from the plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be said that the defendant's possession was an intentional negligence.

However, as acknowledged by the court below, if the defendant purchased the so-called right of interest (right of interest) that can acquire ownership of the building site in the event that the plaintiff did not pay the remaining amount in the plaintiff's name, and if the contract was cancelled due to the relationship that the defendant did not pay the remaining amount in the plaintiff's name, the cancellation of the contract shall be legitimate unless there are special circumstances. Thus, if the above contract was cancelled due to the legitimate cancellation of the contract, it shall be deemed that even if the plaintiff received the land again after the cancellation of the contract, it shall be deemed that the first non-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im-im.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-subop (Presiding Judge)