In the disposition of purchase and sale, whether the plaintiff obtains unjust benefits due to the reason that he/she should return to the plaintiff and whether there is any reason that he/she causes damages to the State is not examined and determined.

In deciding whether the cancellation of the contract for the sale and purchase of property devolving upon the State is legitimate, the case holding that there is an error of law in failing to examine and determine whether there are grounds to obtain unjust benefits and to inflict losses on the State.

Article 198 of the Civil Procedure Act

Head of the Gu

The Director General of Seoul Government

Seoul High Court Decision 61Do183 delivered on July 26, 1962

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Although the court below asserted that the conclusion of the lease contract for the plaintiff's real estate was the fundamental cause for the plaintiff's illegal reduction, and that the plaintiff's acquisition of this case's property was due to the plaintiff's fraudulent reduction, and that such cause was the cause for the cancellation of the contract for the sale of this case's property to the plaintiff, the court below did not make a decision on this point, which was erroneous in the omission of judgment, and it was examined as to the third ground for appeal by the

According to the records, the defendant alleged that the above sale and purchase disposition against the plaintiff was erroneous in infringement of the intervenor's right to appeal against the plaintiff's main property. The defendant's assistant intervenor asserted that there was an unfair disposal by the voice pressure against the Minister of Finance and Economy as at the time of acquisition of the plaintiff's main property, and that the plaintiff was indicted due to the above acquisition of the property, and that the plaintiff was just in violation of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Breach of Trust due to the above acquisition of property, and that the plaintiff was just in violation of the Act on the Disposal of Illegal Destruction, and that the plaintiff was just in violation of the above disposal of property. The court below accepted the plaintiff's main claim on the ground that the defendant's assistant intervenor's claim against the plaintiff cannot be deemed a legitimate relation to the property, but the defendant's assertion against the plaintiff was erroneous in the judgment of the court below since it did not err in the misapprehension of the plaintiff's right to appeal against the plaintiff since it did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below since it did not contain legitimate grounds for appeal as to reverse this point.

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags