(a) The validity of a sales contract concluded with a condition precedent that farmland will become a site for the future;

(b) The validity of a contract for a condition precedent that the parties planned to fulfill the condition before the fulfillment of the condition precedent and performed an act corresponding to the performance of obligation;

In the contract of a contract of a condition precedent, even if the parties have performed their obligations in advance, the formation of the contract does not affect the conclusion of the contract.

Articles 147, 151 of the Civil Act, Articles 16, 19, and 25 of the Farmland Reform Act

Jin-Jin-Jin Park

E.I.D.

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na352, 353 decided March 27, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff (hereinafter simply referred to as Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff)

The grounds of appeal of both leap-type and Kim Jong-soo are as shown in each appellate brief attached to the attached Form, and the answer of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the counter defendant simply is called the plaintiff)'s attorney is as shown in the attached answer thereafter.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Yang Sung-sik

The First Ground for Appeal

Based on evidence, the court below recognized that the sale contract between the original defendant was farmland at the time of the sale and purchase of the land in this case, but it was concluded on the condition that the land will be converted into a site in the future, and recognized that the land in this case was effective as the sale contract at the time of the fulfillment of the above suspension condition after its full siteization, and there is no error in law in finding it as above. Furthermore, if the object of the sale is farmland at the time of the sale and purchase, and the object of the sale is not a condition of suspension for the future site formation, it shall be denied the validity of the sale of farmland in violation of Article 16, Article 19, and Article 25 of the Farmland Reform Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, but it is not reasonable to discuss the sale contract at the time of the suspension condition. Thus, there is no error of law

The Second Ground of Appeal

Based on evidence, the court below recognized that the sale and purchase of the instant land between the original defendant was a contract under which (2) the ownership of the surrounding housing was gradually buried in accordance with the implementation of the urban district plan from a certain period of time, and (3) the original defendant started to enter into a large number of houses at the time of the sale and purchase contract between the original defendant, and (4) the original defendant organized so-called Housing Association at the time of the conclusion of the sale and purchase contract between the original defendant and intended to jointly construct the housing. (5) The plaintiff recognized the fact that the original defendant continued to engage in commercial activities at 4-Ga, Jung-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul to the present time from the above sale and purchase contract to the present time, and that the original defendant's sale and purchase of the instant land was a contract under which the land becomes a site conversion, and that the original defendant did not comply with the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase contract prior to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase contract, and therefore, it is justified to interpret that the original act was not a legitimate act.

The ground of appeal No. 3

It is reasonable that the court below recognized the fact that the land of this case was completely a site in full by comprehensively taking into account the testimony made by the witness gathering, letter-to-date, Lee Jong-ju, Shin Tae-sik, Kim Byung-jin, and Go-gu as decided by the court below, the results of the verification conducted on January 31, 1963 and the results of the appraisal conducted on the appraiser status, and there is no appeal for the legitimate fact-finding of the court below from the opposing perspective.

As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the court below held that the fact of siteization is not only a unilateral act of the parties to the sale and purchase of the land, but it depends on whether the universal use of the land is made according to the changes in the surrounding environment as well as the topography of the land, it is reasonable that the determination of siteization can be a legal condition since it belongs to a definite fact in the future, and it cannot be adopted to a contrary opinion that there is no possibility that the siteization can be a legal condition.

As to the ground of appeal No. 5, the court below is not only clear by the original judgment that the land of this case is formally explained about the progress of the site, but also by the explanation as above (the ground of appeal No. 3). Thus, it is not reasonable to criticize the original judgment with a dissenting opinion.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant Kim Jong-soo

The issue of appeal is that the court below recognized the establishment of No. 2 in the course of attacking the court below's selection for the preparation of evidence, and it is obvious in light of the original judgment and that No. 3 was the evidence of evidence in combination with other evidences and facts possessed by the plaintiff, and the contents of No. 1 and No. 2 were not admitted as evidence in this case, and since No. 1 and No. 2 were not admitted as evidence in this case, there is no reason to discuss the appeal on the above documentary evidence, and there is no ground to deny the fact-finding of the court below as an independent opinion.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags