The validity of a father-child who is a burden attached to an administrative disposition of a binding act or a binding discretionary act (negative), and in such a case whether the declaration of intent of a gift made according to an invalid father-child becomes null and void as a matter of course (negative)

In general, in cases where additional clauses are attached to an administrative disposition, which is to be borne by a binding act or a binding discretionary act, the additional clauses are null and void, and the effect of the administrative disposition itself may also be affected by the nullification of the additional clauses. However, such a reason is only the motive or chain with which the person who received the disposition made the declaration of intent of the gift as a performance of the obligation. Thus, the declaration of intent itself does not become null and void as a matter of course, aside from the fact that it may be a cause for revocation.

Articles 109 and 741 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Attorney Loatat Law Firm)

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na22986 delivered on September 9, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In general, in cases where additional clauses are attached to an administrative disposition, which is to be borne by a binding act or a binding discretionary act, the additional clauses are null and void, and the effect of the administrative disposition itself may also be affected by the nullification of the additional clauses. However, such a reason is merely the motive or chain with which the person who received the disposition expressed his/her intent as a performance of the obligation, and thus, the declaration of intent itself does not become null and void as a matter of course, apart from the fact that it may be a cause for revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da56883, Jun. 13, 1995).

The court below is just in rejecting the claim against the defendant for the execution of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case, since the plaintiff's expression of donation of land incorporated into the road, which the plaintiff performed as an assistant to the permission disposition of change of land form and quality, is not automatically null and void in view of the above purport of the precedent. There is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misapprehension of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)