[1] Whether Article 34 of the State Property Act and Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the estimated price of the pertinent property shall be determined by taking into account the market price at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract for the sale of state-owned or public property

[2] The specific degree of the object and the amount as the elements for establishing a sales contract

[1] In selling state-owned or public property, the estimated price of the pertinent property shall be determined in consideration of the market price at the time of conclusion of the sales contract, and even if the pertinent statutes stipulate that the estimated price shall be determined by requesting two or more appraisal corporations to appraise the property above a certain amount and the estimated price shall be determined by taking an arithmetic mean of the appraised price (Article 34 of the State Property Act and Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). This provision does not affect the private legal effect

[2] In a sales contract, the subject matter and the price are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of conclusion of the contract, and the method and standards to specify them ex post facto are sufficient if the parties have established the method and standards to specify them. In this case, if there is a dispute between the parties as to the calculation of the large amount according to the agreed standards, the court

[1] Article 34 of the State Property Act, Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act / [2] Article 563 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da4947 delivered on June 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1999), Supreme Court Decision 96Da26176 delivered on January 24, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 632)

Guro Union Housing Association (Attorney Kim Ho-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Republic of Korea and one other (Law Firm Ho, Attorneys Cho Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na4052 delivered on December 21, 2000

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Summary of the judgment of the court below

가. 원심은 내세운 증거를 종합하여, 1994. 3. 16. 등록을 마친 연합주택조합인 원고 조합이 관할 구로구청장(그 후 관할구청이 금천구청으로 변경되었다.)으로부터 같은 해 7. 15. 서울 금천구 독산동 711의 2 외 37필지 31,987.40㎡상에 996세대의 조합아파트를 건축하기 위한 주택건설사업계획 승인신청을 얻게 되었는데 위 승인 당시 착공예정일은 같은 해 7., 준공예정일은 1997. 1.로 되어 있었던 사실, 위 사업계획승인 당시 원고 조합의 사업부지인 38필지 토지에 피고 대한민국 소유의 원심판결문 첨부 제1토지(이하 '제1토지'라고만 한다)와 피고 금천구 소유의 같은 원심판결문 첨부 제2토지(이하 '제2토지'라고만 한다)가 포함되어 있었고, 위 토지 중 독산동 696, 같은 동 716 토지를 제외한 나머지 토지는 도로와 하천으로서 행정재산이었던 사실, 이에 관할구청은 위 사업계획승인을 하면서 사업부지 내의 국, 공유지는 사용검사 전까지 용도폐지 등의 절차를 거쳐 매입하도록 하고 착공시까지 매입하지 않을 경우 시공유재산관리조례 제23조에 의한 사용료가 부가된다는 조건을 붙인 사실, 원고 조합은 1994. 7. 16. 착공신고를 하고 대지조성공사 등 건설사업을 시작하여 1996. 말경 아파트를 완공한 사실, 그런데 피고 금천구는 1995. 10. 20.과 같은 해 10. 30. 이 사건 토지 중의 행정재산을 공유재산심의위원회를 거쳐 잡종재산으로 변경하였고 1996. 3. 5. 재정경제부로부터 매각승인이 내려지자 원고 조합에게 위 토지를 매수하라고 요청하였으나, 원고 조합은 조합원들이 돈을 납부하지 않는다거나 부동산의 시세가 너무 상승하여 그대로 매입할 수 없다는 등의 이유로 이에 응하지 않은 사실, 그러던 중 1996. 말경 아파트가 완공되자 원고 조합은 조합원들이 아파트에 입주할 수 있도록 관할 금천구청장에게 임시사용승인을 신청하였으나 금천구청장은 사업대상토지인 위 토지에 대한 매매계약이 이루어지지 않았다는 이유로 임시사용승인을 거절하는 한편 1996. 12. 9. 위 토지의 감정평가액이 제1토지는 금 3,921,742,850원, 제2토지는 금 178,561,250원으로 결정되어 그 가격으로 매매할 예정임을 원고 조합에 통보한 사실, 이에 원고 조합은 위 감정평가액은 사업계획승인 당시의 시가보다 너무 비싸므로 사업계획승인 당시의 시가대로 매매계약을 체결하기를 바라며 그렇지 못할 때는 법원에 지가에 관한 소송을 제기하여 그 결과에 따라 매수하겠으니 그 이전까지 대부계약을 체결하고 임시사용승인을 하여 달라고 요청하였으나 피고 금천구는 이를 거절하였다가, 결국 원고 조합과 피고 금천구는 여러 차례의 협의를 거친 끝에 1997. 1. 24. 위 토지에 관한 매매계약을 체결하기에 이르렀는데(이하 '이 사건 매매'라고 한다), 위 계약 당시 제1토지(이 토지는 피고 대한민국의 소유이지만 금천구청장이 국유재산법에 따른 권한의 위임을 받아 위 매매계약을 체결하였다)의 매매대금은 금 3,921,742,850원, 제2토지의 매매대금은 금 178,561,250원으로 하고 위 대금 중 제1토지에 대하여 금 392,175,000원, 제2토지에 대하여 금 17,857,000원을 계약 체결일에 납부하고 나머지 금 3,529,567,850원과 금 160,704,250원은 1997. 3. 24.까지 납부하기로 하며, 다만 위 각 매각대금은 위 각 토지의 가격이 원고 조합의 아파트단지 조성공사로 인하여 상승되었음을 참작하여 원고가 그 상승된 금액 부분의 감액을 구하는 소송을 법원에 제기하여 법원의 감액 판결을 얻으면 그에 따라 조정하며(계약조항 제10조), 판결에 따라 대금액수의 조정(감액 또는 조성비 공제 등)이 있을 경우에는 기히 납부된 금액의 이자 또는 미납에 의한 연체료도 동시 비례하여 조정된다(계약조항 제11조)고 약정한 사실(이하 '위 제10항과 제11항을 특약조항'이라고 한다), 원고 조합은 위 약정에 따라 계약 당일 제1토지의 대금 중 금 392,175,000원, 제2토지의 대금 중 금 17,857,000원을 지급하였고, 금천구청장은 같은 해 1. 27. 원고 조합의 아파트에 대하여 임시사용승인을 하였으나 원고 조합은 나머지 매매대금을 아직 지급하지 않고 있는 사실을 각 인정하였다.

B. First, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the instant special agreement clause has no validity on the grounds as alleged in its assertion, on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the Defendant or its assertion alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant special agreement clause was agreed by the Plaintiff’s coercion by the Plaintiff’s members, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and on the sole ground that the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act prescribes that the market price of miscellaneous property should be taken into account, it cannot be denied the validity of the said special agreement clause under the agreement between the parties, and there is no evidence to deem that the said special agreement clause is a subordinate provision that cannot be amended by Article 1 of the sales contract that originally provides for

In addition, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case rapidly increased value after July 1994, and it seems that this would result from the execution of the plaintiff union's housing construction project, and the plaintiff union requested that the sale price be determined at the market price as at the time of the approval of the business plan before the conclusion of the contract of this case and eventually added the above special agreement into the contents of the contract. In light of the fact that the above special agreement clause was inserted into the contents of the contract, the plaintiff union and the defendants decided that the sale price was determined at the market price at the time of the contract, and the apartment construction of the plaintiff union was decided to deduct the increased land price from the price at the time of the apartment construction of the plaintiff union, and the specific standard was entrusted to the court's decision. In light of the various circumstances of the decision, the court below determined that the appropriate sale price of the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was reasonable based on the presumption at the time of the conclusion of the sale contract, namely, the project implementation

In addition, the lower court, based on the result of the Nonparty’s appraisal by the first instance trial appraiser, deemed that the current status of the land at the time of the approval of the project plan of the said land is farmland or miscellaneous land, but it was anticipated to be converted into a housing site in the future as it belongs to the quasi-industrial area that can build housing under the construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, based on the officially announced land price of the neighboring reference land as of January 1, 1997, and based on the current status as of July 15, 1994, the market price of the first land appraised as of January 24, 1997 as of January 24, 1997, is 1,826,227,000 won in total, and the second land is 87,50,000 won in total, and ordered the implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership of each of the said land in repayment of the remaining amount calculated by subtracting the price already paid out

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. As to the effect of the special agreement clause of this case

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the court below's decision that rejected the defendant's assertion as to coercion and that the special agreement clause of this case was effective is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.

In addition, when selling state-owned or public property, the estimated price of the pertinent property shall be determined in consideration of the market price at the time of conclusion of the sales contract, and even if the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes stipulate that an appraisal of property above a certain amount shall be requested to two or more appraisal corporations and the arithmetic mean of the appraised value shall be the estimated price (Article 34 of the State Property Act and Article 37 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), it shall not affect the judicial effect of the sales contract of this case concerning disposal of miscellaneous property due to such provisions. The argument in the grounds of appeal by the defendant Geumcheon-gu

B. As to the interpretation of the provision of the instant special agreement and the determination of the sales amount

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the court below is justified in taking measures based on the estimated market price at the time of entering into a sales contract, which is based on the facts stated in its reasoning, on the premise of the facts stated in its reasoning, which included the provision of this case into the market price based on the current status at the time of entering into the contract, and the Plaintiff Union and the Defendants determined the sales price as a whole and decided to deduct the increased portion of the land price due to the apartment construction works of the Plaintiff Union, but the specific standard was entrusted to the court’s judgment. In calculating the sales price pursuant to the purport of the agreement, the measure of considering the estimated market price at the time of entering into the sales contract, which goes through a general land price change, at the time of entering into the contract, under the assumption that the current status of the land before the commencement of the site creation work, remains intact, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as to the current status of each land of this case

In addition, in a sales contract, the object and the price are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of conclusion of the contract, and they are sufficient if the method and criteria to specify them ex post thereafter (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da26176, Jan. 24, 1997, etc.). In this case, if there is a dispute between the parties as to the calculation of the price in accordance with the agreed standard, the court must determine it. As long as the court below interpreted the special agreement between the parties on the determination of the purchase price and calculated the price of each land in accordance with such agreement, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the intention of the parties concerned, exceeding the bounds of judicial power, or by misunderstanding the purport of a special agreement, thereby determining the purchase price and the purchase price, etc., as long as the price of each land in this case is calculated in accordance with such agreement, it cannot be accepted in all of the grounds of appeal pointing this out.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)