logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1994. 4. 12. 선고 93다52747 판결
[묘지분양권확인][공1994.6.1.(969),1426]
Main Issues

Whether the contract for payment in lieu of the construction cost liability is subject to the permission of the competent authority to enter into a contract for payment in lieu of the transfer of the right to parcel out part of the cemetery by the foundation which is the object of the maintenance

Summary of Judgment

A payment contract that transfers the right to sell part of a cemetery to a foundation whose purpose is to maintain and manage a park cemetery is to transfer the right to sell part of the cemetery in lieu of the repayment of the construction cost to the foundation in lieu of the repayment of the payment of the construction cost is null and void unless

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 45(3), 42(2), 43, and 40 of the Civil Act; Article 8(2) of the Burial and Graveyard, etc. Act

Reference Cases

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 386, Jan. 17, 1986) (Law No. 1986, Jul. 25, 1978) (Gong1994, 1317)

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Park Young-gu et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant]

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na71941 delivered on September 21, 1993

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

If the facts are duly determined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that the payment contract in lieu of the payment of the construction cost as to the amount of No. 2,000 square estate among the first cemetery cemetery in Korea in the judgment of the court below constitutes an act of amending the articles of incorporation as an act of disposing of the basic property of the defendant foundation, and thus null and void without the permission of the competent authority, and it shall not be deemed that there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit and the lack of reasons.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)

arrow