Where any timber subject to the Foreign Capital Management Act is disposed of from the competent Minister without releasing its nature as a foreign capital, the validity of such disposal.

Even if the Plaintiff exchanged the timber owned by the Defendant on the ground that it is fit for a housing construction being constructed at the time without having the competent Minister’s release of the nature as a foreign capital even though this timber is foreign capital subject to the Foreign Capital Management Act, the exchange contract is null and void without the permission of the competent Minister.

Article 5 of the Foreign Capital Management Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1334 Decided September 6, 1968

B.BAD Eup Housing Construction Cooperatives

Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (65 Ghana700)

The appeal is dismissed.

The total cost of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff shall modify the purport of the claim after appeal to the plaintiff, and shall deliver to the plaintiff 14 persons, 2 parts, 70 foots, 12 persons, 4 parts, 10 foots, 250 foots, 14 persons, 2 parts, 350 foots, 13 persons, 4 parts, 8 foots in width, 1447 foots, 923 foots, 15, 210 news, 16,133 news, 133 in 8 foots, 144 in 144, more than 144,00 US, 923 news, 15,210 news, 16,133 others.

If it is impossible to deliver the present product, the price shall be paid at the rate of 90 won per new product.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

As stated in the purport of the claim on January 23, 1960, the Defendant received from the Plaintiff the re-neck of the US 923 Don Don Don 15,210 Don Don Don Don 15,210 Don. The above timber was subject to the Foreign Capital Management Act, and the Plaintiff was not released from the nature of foreign capital from the competent Minister and was not permitted to sell or exchange it. There is no dispute between the

Therefore, since the nature of this case as foreign capital is not cancelled, even if the defendant exchanged the original wood with the defendant's timber suitable for the building of the house which was constructed at the time of the plaintiff, the exchange is null and void in this case without the permission of the competent Minister, so the defendant is obligated to return the above timber to the plaintiff.

However, according to each testimony of the non-party 1 and 2 and the purport of the parties' pleadings, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant has sold and disposed of the whole portion of this case to the other party on January 2, 1960, and the non-party 3's testimony to the contrary contrary to this recognition cannot be trusted and there is no evidence such as reversal of the above recognition, and eventually, the obligation to return the present case's timber was already impossible in February 1960, so it is interpreted that the defendant is only liable to return the amount received by the defendant to the plaintiff at the time of sale.

At the time, the Defendant asserted that there was a set-off against the Plaintiff on an equal amount with the amount of KRW 57,170,00 for the above 306,470 won. Thus, the Defendant did not sell 1, 2, 3, 7, and 11-2 of evidence Nos. 11, 11, 2 of evidence Nos. 11, 7, and 5 of this case’s testimony of Non-Party 1, and the previous purport of the parties’ arguments. On Jan. 23, 1960, the Defendant did not sell 1.C. 6, but did not accept 5,00 won for the above 40,000 won for the above 50,000 won for the above 50,000 won for the above 50,000 won for the above 50,000 won for the above 60,000 won for the above 60,000 won for the above 5,006,06,000.

Therefore, the defendant should return 405,866 won at the market price as at the time of its approval due to the invalidity of the exchange of timber. However, since the plaintiff is obligated to pay the defendant the amount of KRW 556,576, which was already paid out of KRW 556,576, which was agreed to pay within the end of March 1960, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the defendant a limited amount of KRW 486,576, the amount of KRW 76, which was already paid to the defendant. Therefore, if the defendant offsets the amount on an equal amount (if the defendant did not have the awareness of the above law at the time of selling the timber to others, it is problematic whether there was negligence, and it is not possible to offset the amount of KRW 80,710, as it cannot be viewed as intentional tort, the plaintiff's claim for the main lawsuit by the plaintiff should be rejected.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance that shares the same conclusion is just and correct, and the appeal is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Justice)