The effect of land supply contracts in violation of Article 32 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Articles 23 and 8(1) of the Rules on Housing Supply

Even if a land supply contract violates Article 32 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act and Articles 23 and 8(1) of the Housing Supply Rules, its judicial effect cannot be denied.

Article 32 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Articles 8(1) and 23 of the Rules on Housing Supply

Supreme Court Decision 90Da12243 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1990, 642) 93Da131 delivered on June 25, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2115) 92Da42651 delivered on August 13, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2413)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Military Personnel's Mutual Aid Association (Attorney O Byung-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na24655 delivered on November 23, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the purport of the relevant statutes, even if the land supply contract in this case was in violation of Article 32 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and Articles 23 and 8(1) of the Rules on Housing Supply, its judicial effect cannot be deemed to be denied. Therefore, the judgment below is just and the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit, etc., in the judgment below.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

Examining and comparing the evidence with the records, the fact-finding by the court below as to the circumstance in which the defendant concluded the land supply contract in this case with the deceased non-party 1 is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misconception of facts against the rules of evidence without making a proper deliberation as to the theory of lawsuit in the court below, and if the facts are the same as the court below legitimately confirmed, the land supply contract in this case cannot be deemed to constitute an unfair juristic act provided in Article 104 of the Civil Act or a juristic act contrary to the social order provided in Article 103 of the Civil Act, and therefore, the court below's judgment to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the court below

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with records, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s assertion that the instant land supply contract is impossible to be performed is justifiable and does not constitute an error of law like the theory of lawsuit in the lower judgment. There is no

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

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)