A. Whether the subject matter of sale and the price are specified at the time of conclusion of a contract constitutes the elements for establishment of a sales contract (negative)

B. The validity of a contract or reservation, where a local government fails to implement the requirements and procedures under the Budget and Accounts Act while entering into a private contract as the subject of the private economy (= null and void)

A. Since a sale and purchase becomes effective when one of the parties agrees to transfer the property right to the other party and the other party agrees to pay the price, the sale and purchase contract is formed by an agreement between the two parties on the transfer of the property right by the seller and the payment of the price by the buyer. In such a case, the subject matter and the price of the sale are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and the method and

B. When a local government as the subject of a private economy concludes a contract under the private law with a private person, it shall meet the requirements and procedures, such as separate preparation of a contract under the Budget and Accounts Act applied mutatis mutandis by the Local Finance Act, and even if a contract or reservation under the private law was made between the local government and the private person, it shall not be effective as a contract or reservation that has not gone through the above statutory

A. Article 563(b) of the Civil Act: Article 70-6 of the former Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Act No. 4102 of Mar. 31, 1989); Article 75(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12866 of Dec. 29, 1989)

A. Supreme Court Decision 4292Da819 delivered on July 7, 1960, 78Da551,552 delivered on June 27, 1978 (Gong1986,437) 86Da2329 delivered on February 11, 1986 (Gong1989,798)

Korea Housing & Commercial Bank (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na22468 delivered on October 7, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Since a sales contract takes effect when one of the parties agrees to transfer the property right to the other party and the other party agrees to pay the price, the sales contract is formed by an agreement between the two parties on the transfer of the property right by the seller and the payment of the price in consideration by the buyer. In such a case, the subject matter and the price of the sale are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and it is satisfied if the method and criteria to specify it ex post facto and specifically (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2454, Feb. 11, 198

However, according to Article 63 of the Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4006, Apr. 6, 1988) which provides that even if the plaintiff stated on August 24, 1992 on the second date for pleading of the court below, the plaintiff paid advance payment on each of the real estate of this case on December 30, 198, the purchase and sale contract for each of the real estate between the plaintiff and the defendant was established (No. 526). According to Article 63 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4006, Apr. 6, 1988), the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Budget and Accounts Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the contract to which the local government is a party, and Article 70-6 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4102, Mar. 31, 1989) which provides that the contract shall be executed separately by the Presidential Decree No. 165197.

According to the records, it can be known that the plaintiff and the defendant did not follow the requirements and procedures under the above Acts and subordinate statutes, such as separate preparation of a contract concerning the sale of each of the real estate in this case. Since such requirements and procedures have not been fulfilled, the court below notified the plaintiff of the decision that the defendant would make two sites to the plaintiff as the store site of the plaintiff bank, upon the plaintiff's request that the plaintiff would make a store construction site within the Seoul Hodong Housing Site development project area, and notified the plaintiff of the payment of the expected sale price of the above site. After that, the Minister of Construction and Transportation approved the supply of each of the real estate in this case, it cannot be deemed that the contract for the sale of each of the real estate was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and even if the contract for the sale of the plaintiff's assertion was concluded, the plaintiff cannot seek implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the above sale of each of the real estate in this case against the defendant, and this does not affect the conclusion even if the plaintiff had constructed the real estate in this case pursuant to the first ground.

Although the reasoning of the court below is somewhat insufficient, it is just to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendant did not have any contract for sale of each of the real estate in this case, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete hearing due to lack of right to request for explanation. The argument is without merit.

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

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)