A contract is concluded by the prospective purchaser of stocks to be purchased to transfer the stocks in return for premium, but the contract is not performed, and Articles 22(2) and 34 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

If an expected purchaser of stocks to be purchased transfers stocks to another person, it shall be the reason to cancel the sale of stocks devolving upon the State even if the contract has not been executed.

Article 22(2) and Article 34(2) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Plaintiff

Minister of Finance and Economy

Defendant 1 and 180 others

Seoul High Court Decision 63Gu211 delivered on April 27, 1965

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Of the grounds of appeal No. 1, 2, in the first instance court's grounds of appeal as to the defendant Lee Jong-ok's representative, the judgment of the court below was delivered and delivered a letter of waiver of the right to the non-party foundation's non-party foundation's right to the non-party foundation's transfer to 1,00,000,000 won (or 1,000,000,0000,0000 won won), and it should not be viewed as a case where the purchaser of the so-called property belonging to the plaintiff under Article 22 (2) and Article 34 (2) 2 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the plaintiff did not dispose of the property before the transfer of ownership of the property. However, since the execution of the sales contract was interrupted after the occurrence of such a reason and the liability of the purchaser of the property devolving to the defendant's representative, the court below's decision that it cannot be recognized that the right was transferred after the purchase contract on the non-party foundation's transfer of the property belonging to the court.

Article 22(2) of the Subdivision Act provides that a purchaser of property devolving upon the State shall perform the duties of a manager as stipulated in Chapter IV of this Act until the ownership of the property is transferred, and that the lessee or manager of the property devolving upon the State shall preserve the property under the direction of the Government, and shall not sublease or dispose of the property without approval of the Government. Article 35 subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that if the purchaser violates the obligations of a lessee or manager as stipulated in this Act, the lease or management contract may be cancelled and the return of the property devolving upon the State may be ordered. The purport of the above provision is that the purchaser of the property devolving upon the State shall perform the duties of a manager under the same Act before the purchase and sale of the property is completely acquired, but it is evident that the sale contract may be cancelled if the purchaser violates such prohibition provisions, and that the sale and sale contract may not be cancelled, and that the sale and sale of the property devolving upon the request for ownership devolving upon the State, even before the formation of the contract for sale and purchase of the property devolving upon the State.

(In this case, even if the plaintiff who was the person scheduled to acquire shares prior to the establishment of a contract for sale of shares belonging to the State cannot become the purchaser of property belonging to the State as referred to in Article 22 (2) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, it is not a disqualified purchaser of property belonging to the State as referred to in Article 9 (5) of the Act and Article 7 (2) of the Enforcement Decree

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the remaining grounds of appeal.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court