A. The meaning of "de facto determination" under the latter part of Article 406 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act

B. The case holding that it does not violate the binding force of the judgment of remanding, following the court's new factual basis after remanding and the judgment on the interpretation of legal act following it

A. The reason for reversal of the court of final appeal under the latter part of Article 406(2) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the de facto decision made by the court of final appeal as to the matters to be examined ex officio in the process, and it does not refer to the determination of facts as to the merits.

(b) The case holding that it does not violate the binding force of the judgment remanded, following the court's new factual basis finding after remand and the judgment on the interpretation of legal act following it

Article 406(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu2930 Decided August 25, 1987 (Gong1987, 1518) (Gong1989, 30) 88Nu6 Decided November 22, 1988

Attorney Lee Do-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Sung-he et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 89Meu25134 Decided April 13, 1990

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na18236 delivered on October 16, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

The reason for reversal of the court of final appeal under the latter part of Article 406(2) of the Civil Procedure Act is that the court of final appeal is a de facto judgment as to the matters to be examined ex officio in the procedure, and it refers to a factual judgment as to the merits. However, among the judgment of remanding party members, the judgment of the court of final appeal does not constitute a de facto judgment as to the matters to be examined ex officio in the procedure, which points out that the court of final appeal grants a building permit to the land to be traded without reservation of any contract between the original and the defendant as to the land to be purchased in the name of the plaintiff.

In addition, the above judgment does not constitute a de facto judgment on the terms and conditions of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, the judgment of the court below prior to the remanding that the above terms and conditions of the contract should be viewed as having been granted a building permit under the plaintiff's name on the premise that it would be granted a building permit without reservation. After remanding the court below, the court below acknowledged new facts, such as the original contract and the contract purpose of the parties to the sales contract, which are not found in the process of the conclusion of the contract between the defendant and the defendant before remanding the case, and in light of such facts, it is reasonable to interpret the contract intent as the defendant purchased a right to transfer a building under the other's name and obtained a building permit under the same name and made an implied agreement to register the ownership transfer to the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff after completing the contract. Accordingly, the judgment of remanding party members does not conflict with the legal judgment as the reason for reversal, and each precedent is not a proper precedent in this case.

Ultimately, there is no reason to argue that the judgment below violated the binding force of the judgment reversed and remanded.

In addition, upon examining the evidence established by the court below in accordance with the records, we accept the above fact-finding of the court below, and there is no error of finding facts without any evidence or legal interpretation as it is without merit.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)