(a) Obligation to transfer the ownership of the Republic of Korea to a person who purchased State property under the jurisdiction of the General Shipbuilding before August 9, 1945;

(b) whether the sale of a specific parcel of land was made at an average price, and whether the sale of increased balance has been made where the net balance of contract increased as a result of the actual survey;

A. On August 9, 1945, state property under the jurisdiction of the Japanese General Government shall be naturally owned by the Republic of Korea at the same time as the establishment of the Government of the Republic of Korea (not reverted property) and the contractual obligations to be borne by the Japanese Government in relation to the above state property shall also be succeeded to by the Republic of Korea at the same time as the establishment of the Government of the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, the Republic of Korea is obligated to register the transfer of ownership for the plaintiff who purchased state property from the head of the tax office at the

(b)if, as a result of the actual purchase of three parcels of land, the increased portion, as a matter of course, would be excluded from the increased portion, should be included in the subject matter of sale, and the price for the increased portion, based on the average price at the time of sale, should be calculated on the basis of the net price at the time of sale.

(a)Article 2 of the military legislation, Articles 1 and 5 of the first Agreement on Finance and Property between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America; Article 563 of the Civil Code;

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1355 Decided September 20, 1966

[Judgment of the court below]

The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea’s legal representative shall be the number of leaps, the largest amount of leaps, and the amount of paths;

Gwangju High Court Decision 80Na151,164 decided Nov. 27, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

With respect to Section 1:

In addition, the first agreement on finance and property concluded between the government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America is not included in the property belonging to Article 5 and the separate provision of Article 1. In addition, it is interpreted that the property of this case is not included in the property belonging to the State of the United States of America as of September 25, 1945 under subparagraph 3 of the U.S. military law, since it is interpreted that the property of this case is not the property belonging to the State of the Republic of Korea (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da1355 delivered on September 20, 196) since it is not the so-called property belonging to the State of the Republic of Korea and the establishment of the government of the Republic of Korea and the establishment of the government of the Republic of Korea in relation to the above property, and the first agreement on the financial and property between the government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America is not included in the property belonging to the State of the Republic of Korea under Article 1.

With respect to Section 2:

According to the court below's lawful determination, the plaintiff merely purchased 41 m3 p.m. ( Address 1 omitted), which is the State property owned by the plaintiff from the director of the tax office at the time of January 31, 194, and paid the purchase price in full by 40,07 won per 15 m. at the time of closing m. ( Address 2 omitted), 5,159 p.m. and 6,383 p.m. in cash, which is the State property owned by the plaintiff, as at the time of the above 1944.m. ( Address 3 omitted). However, the court below's determination that the sale price of the above miscellaneous property should be 8,367 p.m. and the sale price of the above miscellaneous property should be 10,000 p.m. as at the time of sale and purchase as at the time of the above increase as at the time of the above 300,000 p.m. (hereinafter referred to as "the above 196th p.m.

The issue is groundless.

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

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)