The case holding that the right to cancel the contract is extinguished because the object of the contract is changed to a different kind of article.

Even if the buyer was unable to pay the remaining price after concluding a sales contract for the land which was a yellow land, and the buyer had completed the clearing at the time, if the buyer had already completed the clearing and made the land into farming, the seller's right to cancel the contract is extinguished because the subject matter of the contract was changed to another object due to the processing or remodeling by clearing.

Articles 259, 543, and 544 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Cheongju District Court of the first instance (No. 4292 citizen133) Cheongju District Court

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant et al. shall prohibit the construction of the farmland development project by intrusioning into the 5955 square meters by Hong-ri (number omitted) Gagwon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the farmland development project site.

The part of the total litigation cost between the plaintiff and the defendant, etc. shall be borne by the defendant, etc., and the part between the plaintiff and the supplementary intervenor shall be borne by the supplementary intervenor.

1. The plaintiff's attorney sought the same judgment as the disposition, and the defendant et al. and the supplementary intervenor's attorney are dismissed. The costs of prosecution are assessed against the plaintiff.

2. The abstract of factual statements by both parties;

(1) As for the Plaintiff’s 5-year-old land for the cancellation of the contract and the cancellation of the contract by Nonparty 2’s 5-year-old land development project, the Plaintiff’s 5-year-old land development project for the purpose of the cancellation of the contract and the cancellation of the contract to the Plaintiff’s 0-year-old land development project, i.e., the Plaintiff’s 0-old land development project for the purpose of the cancellation of the contract and the cancellation of the contract to the Plaintiff’s 0-old land development project, i.e., the Plaintiff’s 5-year-old land development project for the purpose of the cancellation of the contract, i., the Plaintiff’s 0-old land development project for the purpose of the cancellation of the contract, i.e., the Plaintiff’s 0-old land development project for the purpose of the cancellation of the contract and the cancellation of the contract to the Plaintiff’s 0-day-old land development project for the purpose of the sale of the remaining 0-day land development project.

(2) The plaintiff's answer to the defendant, etc. and supplementary intervenors 5,955 is the plaintiff's 154 pieces of land (number omitted) which were alleged in the plaintiff's 154 pieces of land, which were originally 154 pieces of land around 38,00,000, due to large-scale flood in 1942, the plaintiff's 154 pieces of land was yellow land; the plaintiff's supplementary intervenors 2 entered into a contract with the original owner of the exhibition and acquired the right to such reclamation; the non-party 2 acquired the right to such reclamation on April 27, 1958; the non-party 1 transferred the right to such reclamation to the non-party 3 at 00,000 on an estimate of 1,250,000,000,000,0000 piece of land and 5,050,005,000,05,000 piece of land for sale and sale on 1,0505,05,05,000.

(A) In the event of Nonparty 3’s issuance of a promissory note as indicated in the exhibition, but it was made with the same promissory note, which is a securities, without any ability and intent to pay it, and eventually, the agreement entered into at least KRW 3,300,000 on June 20, 1958 and the agreement entered into on April 27, 1958 on the transfer of the right to exploit this case’s possession was null and void as it was based on Nonparty 2’s declaration of intent in the exhibition by Nonparty 3’s fraud, and thus, it is possible to cancel the agreement even if it is non-party 3’s declaration of intent to cancel it in writing on October 15, 1958, and thus the agreement was cancelled.

(B) Even if the contract for the transfer of domestic works was effective, Nonparty 2 did not pay any balance of KRW 1,00,000 to Nonparty 3 for the remainder of KRW 2,300,000 even though Nonparty 2 fulfilled the contract, and thus, Nonparty 2 notified Nonparty 2 to pay the balance within the period of October 25, 1958, but he did not pay the balance within the said period. Thus, Nonparty 2’s contract for the transfer of the right to clearing with Nonparty 3 for the purpose of notifying the cancellation of the contract for the transfer of domestic works on October 27, 1958 is cancelled.

(C) Even if the land of this case was processed or remodeled due to the development by Nonparty 3 in wartime and changed to another object, the right to cancel the contract is extinguished due to the processing or remodeling, and the right to cancel the contract is not extinguished. In this case, Nonparty 3 in wartime processed or remodeled by Nonparty 3, so the right to cancel the contract of Nonparty 2 is not extinguished, and therefore, the cancellation of the contract of Nonparty 2, such as exhibition, is not valid.

Therefore, in time of war between Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 2, a contract for the transfer of the right to cultivate land in wartime is deemed null and void, and the right to the land of Nonparty 2 in wartime was restored to its original state, and the Defendant, etc. cultivated the land upon delegation of the right to cultivate by Nonparty 2, who was delegated with the right to cultivate the land from the original owner, so it is impossible to comply with the Plaintiff’s request.

3. As a method of proof:

(1) The plaintiff's attorney shall submit Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, 6-1, 5-2, each evidence Nos. 9-1 through 3, 10-11, each evidence Nos. 12-1, 12-2, each evidence Nos. 12-2, and each evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 13-8, and each evidence Nos. 10, 11, 12-1 and 2 shall be admitted, and the court below's witness Nos. 4, 5, and 9-13 shall be admitted, and each evidence No. 2 shall be used after transmission and remand, and the facts of proof shall be acknowledged, and only a copy of each evidence No. 4-1, 2 shall be admitted, and a site No. 5-7, 9, 13 shall be attached.

(2) The defendant et al. and the defendant et al. assistant intervenor's attorney shall submit evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 4-1, 5-2, 12-11, 12-2, and 13 of the above evidence Nos. 12-2, and 13 of the above evidence, and shall use evidence Nos. 9-1 through 3, 10, and 11 of the above evidence, and shall use the evidence Nos. 9-1 to 3, 10, and 11 of the above evidence as profits by recognizing the establishment of evidence No. 3 of the above evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 8, and shall recognize the establishment of only each evidence No. 1,2 of the above evidence Nos. 12-1, 2 of the above evidence, but only the fact that the evidence No. 12-1, 2 of the above evidence is recognized.

1. The 5,95 square meters per 15 square meters per 154 square meters per 154 square meters per 154 square meters per 154 square meters for the original land owned by 0 non-party 1 and 38, and the land per 154 square meters per 1942 was yellow due to large-scale flood; the defendant et al.'s assistant 2 entered into an agreement with the exhibition owner for the purpose of clearing the 1957, with the consent of the original owner of the land for exhibition and 00, the ownership of the reclaimed farmland shall be owned by the non-party 2 and each owner; the 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00.

2. In full view of the contents of Gap evidence No. 10, the witness of the court below's 4,5, and the witness non-party 6's testimony before and after remanding, the whole purport of the party's pleading is as follows: the non-party 3 in wartime shall be transferred to the non-party 2 who exhibited the land 595 square meters on the land of this case and shall be developed with enormous costs and effort from May 1958 to June 195, and the fact that most of the liquidation work is completed and only the distribution and division procedure of the farmland developed is still under way. The testimony of the non-party 7, the non-party 8, the witness of the court below before remanding, and the non-party 9, the witness of the party at the trial before remanding, by comparing each evidence, etc. of the court below's trial to the non-party 6's testimony, and there is no evidence that can affect the above facts even if the testimony of the defendant et al. and the supplementary witness of the defendant et al.

3. (1) Although the defendant, etc. and the assistant intervenor of the defendant et al. issued a promissory note as shown in the exhibition, it is ultimately to issue a false promissory note, which is a securities, without the ability to pay it and intention, so the contract entered into on June 20, 1958 and the contract entered into on April 27, 1958 for the transfer of the right to clearing rights is null and void due to the non-party 2's declaration of intention in exhibition by the non-party 3's fraud, and it is possible to cancel the contract even if it is impossible to cancel the contract on October 15, 1958. The non-party 2 asserted that the contract was cancelled by the non-party 3 et al.'s declaration of intention to cancel the contract on October 15, 1958 and that the contract was cancelled for the transfer of the right to clearing rights. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the non-party 3 et al. were issued with the non-party 2's explanation on June 20, 200198.

(2) Even if the contract for domestic exhibition was effective, Nonparty 2 did not pay any balance of 1,00,000 won to Nonparty 3 even though Nonparty 5 performed the above contract with Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 2 did not pay any balance of 2,300,000 won to Nonparty 2 for the extended period of October 15, 1958, but Nonparty 3 did not pay any balance within the said period of time. However, Nonparty 5 asserted that the contract was rescinded by giving notice of the transfer of the right to land development to Nonparty 5 on October 27, 1958, and Plaintiff 5,955 was without merit, and Nonparty 3 was transferred from Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 5, who was transferred to Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5 to Nonparty 5, who was not the party to the lawsuit, and thus, Nonparty 2 asserted that it was not the party to the lawsuit before the exhibition and cancellation of the contract by Nonparty 1’s agent’s own effort to develop the witness at the time of the exhibition and cancellation of the contract.

(3) Next, even if the land of this case was processed or remodeled due to the development by Nonparty 3 in wartime and changed to another object, the right to cancel the contract is extinguished, but the right to cancel the contract is not extinguished, but this is not a legal ground, so the above assertion is just. The plaintiff who is the family head heir of the non-party 3 has the right to manage the land of this case 5,955 and the right to manage the land of this case has been delegated by the non-party 2 on the premise that the contract for the exhibition is null, void, cancelled, or cancelled, and the defendant et al., etc., who cultivated the 5,955, 955, on the basis of the delegation of the right to cultivate the land of this case from the non-party 2, who was delegated by the non-party 5,955, on October 27, 1958, was not delegated by the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 as the owner of the right to cancel the contract.

5. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for interference against the defendant et al., who obstructed the completion of the reclamation project, such as the procedure for the rearrangement and distribution of the plaintiff's land by intrusion upon 5,955 land in wartime, is justified, and the original judgment, which differs from this purport, is reasonable, and this case is reasonable, and the original judgment is revoked in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the decision is made by applying Articles 89, 93, 94, and 96 of the same Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Jung-chul (Presiding Justice)