beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the first ground of appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the instant sales contract was finally null and void from the beginning, on the ground that it was difficult to recognize that the instant sales contract was concluded for the purpose of excluding or avoiding land transaction permission from the beginning.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there were no errors by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 118 (6) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the sales contract of this case was finally null and void from that time on the ground that it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had an intention to escape from the land transaction permission on the ground that the Plaintiff, an affiliate of the Plaintiff, filed an application for land transaction permission with the Defendant on June 14, 2005 with the purchaser of the Plaintiff, together with the Defendant.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and it did not exhaust all necessary deliberations or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 118(6) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.
3. On the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.