Effects of the original contract in violation of the Forestry Products Control Act

Even if the contract that sells the timber to an individual with the permission to cut the timber for the purpose of mine piting violates the Forestry Products Control Act, it cannot be said that the contract alone is legally impossible or illegal as long as the contract cannot be legally effective.

Civil Act No. 103 and 105

Supreme Court Decision 4278Da181 delivered on March 19, 1946 (Supreme Court Decision 4852 delivered on March 19, 194; Decision 74Da2172 delivered on July 8, 1976 (No. 236 of the Civil Act; Decision 520No. 8586 delivered on March 19, 197)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (64Ga1133)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 200,00 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from May 21, 1963 to the end of the repayment.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant. "The judgment" and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.

The defendant is revoked the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court of first and second instances filed a judgment that "the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff."

In light of the above evidence No. 2, evidence No. 4-2, witness No. 1, and witness No. 2 of the court below without dispute, if the defendant transferred to the non-party No. 2 the above testimony of the non-party No. 1 and part of the witness and the testimony of the non-party No. 3 to the non-party No. 2, the non-party No. 4, through his agent non-party No. 1, if the non-party No. 2 transferred the above testimony of the non-party No. 2 to the non-party No. 2, the non-party No. 5, and the non-party No. 2's testimony of the non-party No. 2 to the non-party No. 4, the non-party No. 1, and the non-party No. 2 were transferred to the non-party No. 2, and the non-party No. 2 was delivered the non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 2's statement to the non-party No. 4 and the non-party No. 2's. 8.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant delivered the above payment agreement equivalent to KRW 289,784 to the defendant around August 1963, it is actual that the non-party 2 had the obligation to pay KRW 200,00 to the non-party 4. Thus, the defendant's defense that the non-party 2 made the above payment agreement is the condition that the non-party 2 should deliver the original wood to the defendant. The above original timber was the permission for cutting down for the original mine for the original pit, and it was impossible to use it for the original pit for the purpose other than pit under the Forestry Products Control Act. It is a contract in violation of the above Forestry Products Control Act, which is a mandatory law, that is, the above payment agreement is null and void, but it cannot be viewed that the defendant's above payment agreement was made for the non-party 4 as the witness of the non-party 1, which is the law regulating the sale contract, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above contract was made for the non-party 2 without any legal defense or defense.

Next, even if the above payment agreement was effective, Nonparty 4 consented to the payment of only the remainder after deducting the Defendant’s claim for the pre-paid fund and expenses incurred in felling against Nonparty 2 from the original wood price. The Defendant’s pre-paid fund and the claim for expenses incurred in deforestation exceeded the above original wood price. Thus, even if there was no room for implementation of the above payment agreement, the Defendant has already asserted that Nonparty 4 paid KRW 189,810 to Nonparty 4 during the above felling period. However, there is no other evidence supporting Nonparty 2 and 5’s testimony and evidence No. 3 as well as other evidence showing the above evidence No. 3, and there is no other evidence citing the above defense without being easily believed in light of the purport of the Defendant’s initial argument.

Finally, the defendant was confiscated by the investigative agency on the ground that the original tree was later corrected after being delivered by the defendant, and the defendant had no obligation to pay the above original tree price. However, as acknowledged earlier, the defendant cannot claim cancellation of the above contract or damages for the reason that the above original tree was already known at the time of the above contract, and cannot refuse to execute the contract, and as long as the original tree was already acquired as the execution of the contract, it cannot be exempted from the obligation to pay the original tree price as long as it was already acquired as the execution of the contract. Therefore, this defense is groundless.

Thus, the defendant was liable to the non-party 4 for the debt amounting to KRW 200,00,000 on August 8, 1963, and the non-party 4 legitimately transferred this debt to the plaintiff on August 11, 1964. The conclusion of the original judgment that the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above debt amounting to KRW 200,000 and interest interest at the rate of five percent per annum, which is the civil legal interest rate after August 13, 1963, from August 13, 1963 to the completion of payment, is justifiable. Thus, the defendant's appeal is unfair and dismissed, and the appeal cost is to be borne to the defendant who is the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)