The effect of the previous lease contract where a third party who is the highest bidder has concluded a sales contract with the State as the lessee renounces the right of preferential purchase in bidding for the property devolving upon the State.

Where a lessee sells the property devolving upon a third party who is the highest bidder by waiver of the preferential purchase right, the previous lease contract shall be deemed null and void as a matter of course. Therefore, the above sale disposition is legitimate even if not cancelled.

Maximum Intervention

The Director General of Seoul Government

Seoul High Court Decision 62Gu364 delivered on May 23, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

The gist of the First Ground for Appeal is as follows:

The sale and purchase contract for the forest land was concluded between the original defendant on November 10, 1961 between the original defendant and the plaintiff, who was the former tenant of the forest land in question, for the plaintiff, who was the highest bidder of the government price of KRW 290,000 by participating in the public auction in the qualification of the former purchaser, and for the plaintiff, who was the highest bidder of KRW 290,000,000, respectively. However, the non-party cannot spend KRW 291,000 as the result of the waiver of the preferential purchase right granted under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Which the plaintiff was awarded the above highest price, and the contract was concluded between the original defendant. However, in such a case, it is impossible to conclude a sale and purchase contract with the plaintiff until the cancellation of the lease contract already concluded between the defendant and the first buyer, and if so, it is unlawful to cancel the sale and purchase contract for the same object, and it is reasonable that the plaintiff's cancellation of the above sale and purchase contract was a legitimate disposition and thus, it is unreasonable for the state to cancel the new sale contract.

The gist of the grounds of appeal No. 2 is to criticize the fact-finding of the court below, but it cannot be found that not only the exclusive authority of the court below, which is the fact-finding court, but also the record violates the principles of logic or experience as well as the rules of fact-finding, unless it violates the rules of logic or experience. Therefore, the appeal to this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu