Cases where there is an error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the subrogation right of a creditor;

Even if there is an agreement between the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the non-party who received the sale of a house, the non-party may not transfer the house to another person until he pays the full amount of the sale price, and as such, the non-party cannot be deemed null and void a sales contract purchased from the non-party on the condition of suspending the acquisition of ownership by paying the full amount of the sale price, the party who purchased the house from the non-

Article 404 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1981 delivered on December 30, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1981 delivered on December 30, 1967

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded a sales contract with the non-party 2 on August 20, 1959 on the non-party 1, which is the building constructed for sale to the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who purchased the above house in lieu of the non-party 2, on the ground that the plaintiff's right to purchase the house in lieu of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who acquired the above house in lieu of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who acquired the above house in lieu of the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, the non-party 1, who acquired the above house in lieu of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, who acquired the above house in lieu of the non-party 36,000 won, and the non-party 2, who acquired the above house in lieu of the non-party 1, the non-party 30,000 won prior approval.

Therefore, by applying Article 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court