[귀속재산매매계약취소처분취소][집10(2)행,041]
The case that deemed that only the submission of the application for coal to the President meets the requirements of the Sub-pactary Rule;
In a case where the President submitted a written application to the President with regard to the disposal of property devolving upon the State, even if the submission of the written application constitutes a petition stipulated in the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, the submission of the written application cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for the complete transfer, and the requirements for the complete transfer of the written application were met only when the written application was accepted to the Council on Petitions on Property Belonging to the State, which is the judgment authority for the
Articles 1, 2, 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4 of the Regulations on Petitions for Property Reversion
Mangjins
Director General of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Government
Seoul High Court Decision 60Ra78 delivered on August 30, 1961
We reverse the original judgment.
This case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer are as follows.
In an administrative litigation seeking the revocation or change of a substitute administrative disposition ex officio, the petitioner must pass through the source, except as otherwise provided in Acts, and the petitioner shall submit the disposition on the property devolving upon the competent administrative agency or a certain administrative agency within a certain period via the administrative agency which has taken such administrative disposition to the competent administrative agency, and shall file the petition deliberation council on the property devolving upon the competent administrative agency via the competent administrative agency within a specified period in accordance with the provisions of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging and the Regulations on the Deliberation on Petitions on Property Belonging to the State. According to the original judgment, the court below recognized the facts that the plaintiff submitted a written application to the President on March 6, 1959, based on the timely evidence, on the premise that the requirements for the principle of the principle of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the rule of the court below were met. However, even if the above submission of a written application to the President constitutes a source of lawsuit stipulated in the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the competent administrative agency within a legitimate period of time, the court below's judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the judgment.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-man (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-Mag-ri, the Mag-Mag-ri,