(a) The validity of an agreement in which the receiver of property devolving upon the State pays remuneration to the broker in transferring the right of management to another person;

B. Defendant’s appeal against the judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claim

A. The defendant does not have the right to appeal against the judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and therefore the defendant's appeal shall not be dismissed as it is unlawful.

B. Since the sale of the vested enterprise management right is prohibited by the law, it would be contrary to the public order and good morals to agree to receive remuneration for such good in transferring it.

Article 1 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction; Article 90 of the Civil Act; Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Kim Dong-dong Kim

Defendant 1 and one other

Jeonju District Court Decision 57No154 delivered on January 27, 1958, Jeonju District Court Decision 57No154 delivered on January 27, 1958

According to Article 31 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, the tenant or manager of an enterprise belonging to the State is dismissed by the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs who has jurisdiction over the business of the enterprise and becomes the tenant or manager of the property belonging to the State pursuant to Article 29 of the same Act, and it is clear that Article 34 of the same Act prohibits the tenant or manager of the property belonging to the State from transferring, leasing, or disposing of the property without the Government's approval, and that the purpose of the Act is to prohibit the sale of the right to manage the property belonging to the State, and that the Act is to effectively dispose of the property belonging to the State and to ensure industrial interest and the stability of the national economy by disposing the property belonging to the State, so it is reasonable to interpret that the agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 to receive remuneration for such mediation is invalid against the order of public order and good customs, and it is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff's claim for compensation between the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 100,000,000 old military property belonging to the non-party 300.

Since the original judgment in the High Court Decision in the Republic of Korea dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2, the defendant did not have the right to appeal, and therefore, the appeal by the defendant in the case of the same defendant is unlawful, and it cannot be dismissed.

Justices Kim Du-il (Presiding Justice)