(a) Effect of land transfer agreement between a local government and a private person which does not meet the statutory requirements;

B. Scope of damage caused by the invalidation of the above transfer agreement

A. Even if the local government requested the operator of the excursion ship business to remove the landing place, and agreed to sell part of the reclaimed land with compensation, and notified the operator in writing, the sales agreement is invalid if it did not go through the requirements and procedures prescribed in Article 52-5 of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4006 of Apr. 6, 198), Article 70-6(1) and (2) of the former Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Act No. 4102 of Mar. 31, 1989), Article 58 subparag. 1 and 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12445 of May 7, 1988), Articles 75(2) and 116 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12866 of Dec. 29, 199).

B. The damages suffered by the management entity due to the invalidity of the above agreement are not a performance profit (the amount equivalent to the market price of the reclaimed land to be sold and the difference between the sale price and the sale price) but a trust profit (physical damage and operating profit, etc. due to removal). However, if the order of the management entity to remove at the expiration of the occupancy permit period of the public waters was a name to be removed at the expiration of the occupancy permit period, it cannot be said that

Article 52-5 of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4006 of Apr. 6, 198), Article 58 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12445 of May 7, 198), Article 58 subparag. 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12445 of May 7, 198), Article 70-6(1) of the former Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Act No. 4102 of Mar. 31, 1989), Article 70-6(2) of the former Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4102 of Mar. 31, 1989), Article 75(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12866 of Dec. 29, 198), Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25696

1. Supreme Court Decision 93Da18990 delivered on November 9, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 71) 2. Supreme Court Decision 71Da792 delivered on June 22, 1971 (Gong140)

Seocho Sea Development Co., Ltd.

Busan Metropolitan City

Busan District Court Decision 91Na15938 delivered on May 20, 1992

1. The judgment of the court below is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim added at the trial are dismissed, respectively.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The primary purport of the claim: The Defendant’s ownership on the ground of a transfer agreement on January 20, 1987, with respect to the portion of 156,321,760 square meters, among the 1433 13,233.4 m2, Pari-dong, Busan Shipping Daegu, Busan, on the part of 143 m23 m23,233.4 m2.

Performance of the pre-registration procedure (the claim was reduced in the trial).

Preliminary claim: The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 316,659,840 won and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5 percent per annum from April 1, 1989 to the date of the final judgment, and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 25 percent per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

(In the trial, it was added.)

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts recognized;

The following facts are no dispute between the parties, or evidence of No. 1 through 10, evidence No. 11-1 through 3, evidence No. 12-16, evidence No. 17, evidence No. 17-2, evidence No. 18-1 through 11, evidence No. 19-23, evidence No. 23-1 through 8, evidence No. 24-1 through 16, evidence No. 25-1 through 4, evidence No. 26-1 through 6, evidence No. 26-1 through 6, evidence No. 1 through 4, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 1 through 5, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 17 of the court below prior to remand, the representative of the plaintiff at the court of first instance prior to remand, and the result of the on-site examination of the witness at the court below, and the result of the survey most advanced appraisal.

A. At around December 1981, the non-party Hong Jong-dong, Busan, the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries obtained permission from the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries to occupy and use public waters of 759-4 of the public waters of 759-4, Busan, for the installation of a landing place on July 1982, the non-party Hong-dong, established a landing place on the public waters of 120.4, and transferred the rights and duties concerning the occupancy and use of public waters and the installation of structures to the plaintiff corporation on July 8, 1982, and the plaintiff operated the excursion ship business using one steel line of 90 tons from September 16 to 90 tons of the said year, but around January 1, 1983, the defendant Si buried only the water area of the same Gu for 86 Asian Games and the 888 Seoul Olympic Games, and requested the plaintiff to remove the landing place.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff allowed the Plaintiff to voluntarily install the above landfill at the market price of the Defendant’s landfill. At the same time, the Plaintiff demanded the Plaintiff to sell part of the hinterland of the above reservoir for the construction of auxiliary facilities, such as the office, etc. After which the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on several compensation, the Plaintiff demanded the Plaintiff to sell 600 square meters by applying 50% of the floor area of the building to the Plaintiff in order to build an office, etc. on the hinterland of the above landfill. Accordingly, the Defendant’s order to sell 90 square meters to the Plaintiff at least 10 square meters, which is the general manager in charge of the construction office of the Busan Yak Stak Stak Stak field. The Plaintiff’s office, etc., determined that at least 140 square meters of the floor area of the building at the time of sale at the time of sale at the end of 10 percent of the total floor area of the building at the time of sale at the end of 10 percent of the total floor area of the building at the time of sale at the end of 20 percent.

C. After that, the above landing site was removed and the execution of reclamation work was completed on the same day, the Defendant City, upon the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, designated the whole reclaimed land as an urban design zone under the Building Act, and announced it on May 1, 1991, with the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, to designate the land of this case as the special project zone, and the maximum building-to-land ratio of the building is not more than 50%, and the construction line should be set back not less than 5m from the road boundary, and the landscape area in the site should be not less than 20% of the site area. According to the above building standard, at least 280 square meters (925.6m3) were required to construct the building on the instant land.

D. Meanwhile, the sale price applied to the sale of the above reclaimed land to the treatment corporation, the contractor of the above reclamation work, around November 1968, was KRW 403,739 per square meter at the time of the first sale, KRW 662,419 per square meter at the time of the second sale around April 198, KRW 662,419 per square meter at the time of the second sale, and KRW 558,292 per square meter at the time of the third sale around September 198.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment thereon

(a) The primary claim

On the other hand, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to sell part of the land of this case to the plaintiff as compensation for the removal of the above landing place installed by the plaintiff, and the defendant notified the plaintiff in writing. Thus, the transfer agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was made. The sale area of the above land requires at least 280 square meters in order to secure 140 square meters of the building's floor area, such as the plaintiff's office guaranteed by the defendant market under the status of 50% of the above building-to-land ratio. Thus, the defendant Si is obligated to perform the transfer registration procedure as to the land of this case as stated in the purport of the claim, the section B of this case as to June 22, 925 due to the above transfer agreement, in exchange for payment of the sale price of 156,321,760 won (58,292 won x 280 square meters) from the plaintiff.

Therefore, since the above contract is 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 in consideration for the transfer of the property right to the other party, it is established by the agreement between the two parties. In such a case, the object of the sale and the price are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and it is sufficient to specify it ex post facto. However, according to Article 52-5 of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 4006 of Apr. 6, 1988), the above contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale and purchase of the property is not effective under the above provision of Chapter 6 (Contract) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Act No. 4102 of Mar. 31, 1989) and Article 70-6 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 981 of the Local Finance Act).

(b) Preliminary claim

The plaintiff, preliminaryly, was null and void due to the lack of legal requirements and procedures for the compensation for the plaintiff's above removal of the landing place. The plaintiff's sales agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant was null and void due to the lack of a public official belonging to the defendant Si. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to 316,659,840 won calculated by deducting the amount of 156,321,760 won, which is equivalent to the market price of the remaining portion of the land, at the time of March 31, 1989, the land that the market price of the defendant's market was sold in lots to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could not purchase the above part of the land under the above agreement.

Therefore, once an agreement on compensation has been reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1 and the above, Defendant 1 is obligated to take measures so that the above agreement on compensation remains effective through the requirements and procedures under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Local Finance Act. However, even if the above agreement was not effective, the Plaintiff’s removal of the above pre-sale site without compensation was made, barring special circumstances, the scope of damages for which the Plaintiff may seek compensation is believed to be effective, and the above agreement on the removal of the pre-sale site was incurred by the removal of the above pre-sale site, i.e., the value of the above facilities at the time of removal and the removal of the above facilities. As such, it is limited to the damages equivalent to the Plaintiff’s sales price at the time of sale of the pre-sale site at the same time as the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement on the average sale price at the time of sale in lots, as otherwise alleged in the ground that the above agreement on sale in lots was 9 and the sale price at the time of sale in lots cannot be determined at the same price as the Plaintiff 2’s sale price at the above.

It is judged to have been caused by mistake that is contrary to the law.

Furthermore, according to the statement of evidence Nos. 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,15 as to whether the above agreement on the sale of an excursion ship was valid, and whether the plaintiff suffered damage due to the removal of the above landing place, the plaintiff was removed from the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries around Aug. 22, 1982, and the non-party Red, who constructed a structure such as landing place with permission for the occupation and use of public waters on December 22, 1981, purchased a ship from the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries with the rights and duties for the occupation and use of public waters and installation of structures, and reported the operation of the excursion ship to the head of Busan Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, with the extension of the period of permission for the occupation and use of the above public waters and installation of structures, and the plaintiff's request for the extension of the period of permission for the occupation and use of the above public waters and the removal of the above facilities until February 3, 1984.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court below is justified and the defendant's appeal is justified. Thus, the judgment of the court below shall be revoked and the judgment of the court below shall be dismissed, and all of the conjunctive claims added in the plaintiff's primary and current trial shall be dismissed, and the burden of the costs of the lawsuit shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act (attached

Judges Park Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)