It cannot be said that there is no violation of the public order and good morals merely on the ground that the sale price is lower than the market price.

It cannot be said that there is no violation of the public order and good morals merely on the ground that the sale price is lower than the market price.

Article 103 of the Civil Act, Article 104 of the Civil Act

Busan City (Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Cho Young-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 65Na781 delivered on April 18, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the above facts and records, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 8-10 of the above evidence Nos. 6-10 of the above evidence and the testimony of the non-party Nos. 6-10 of the above evidence were reviewed, and the original judgment was owned by the defendant, and the non-party Nos. 3 and 6-1 of the above evidence was cultivated and the non-party Nos. 5 of the above evidence Nos. 8 of the court below's decision that the non-party Nos. 1 and 6 of the above evidence Nos. 8 of the above facts and the non-party Nos. 6 of the court below's decision that the non-party Nos. 6 of the above facts and the non-party Nos. 6 of the court below's decision that the non-party Nos. 6 of the court below's decision that the non-party Nos. 3 and 5 of the above facts were the non-party No. 8's purchase and sale of the above land was 6 of the plaintiff's land.

The second ground for appeal is examined.

Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act is only a provision applicable to the sale of farmland distributed as farmland prior to completion of redemption, and it is not possible to say that the provision to restrict the sale of the farmland as land site (not to ask for the cause of site) is already made (this is the opinion of the party member case). In this case, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant had completed the redemption of the original land as distributed farmland by July 30, 1960, and recognized the fact that the court below had made it difficult for the original defendant to return to the original state because it was changed to the site and road as of April 26, 1955, which had already been made difficult for the original defendant to return to the original state as of April 26, 195, the decision did not err in the interpretation of the above Article, or did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation on the issues and failing to exhaust all necessary reasons, and it does not constitute the opinion of the party member in this case.)

The third point of the Dong shall be examined.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined by comparing the contents of each evidence adopted in the part on the judgment in the original judgment stated in the former part of the judgment as to the ground of appeal No. 1, and the facts which the judgment had been admitted by comparison with the contents of each evidence taken out in the records, but the court below did not recognize that there was any error in the fact that the original defendant could not immediately complete the registration of transfer of ownership at the time of the sale (which was the distribution before the completion of the payment) and that the defendant agreed to implement the procedure (which was the condition of the completion of the payment) after acquiring ownership of the land as the completion of the sale. The contents of each evidence of the theory in the lawsuit are nothing more than able to find out that the original judgment was properly rejected as evidence of the judgment "after examining the above recognition on the last day of the original judgment," and therefore, the part of the judgment on the confirmation of the above facts in the original judgment is without merit.

Therefore, by unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)