[행정처분취소][집12(2)행,096]
The meaning of "false report" as the grounds for disqualification for the purchase of reverted property under Article 9 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction.
In the event that the certificate of de facto possession necessary for the procedure for filing an application for lease has been falsely prepared and thus has been falsely reported to the administrative authority, it constitutes a false report under subparagraph 5 of this Article.
Article 9 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 41 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction
Self-Support Corporation
The director general of the Seoul Central Government Office shall take charge of the tax office
Yellow White et al. and five others
Seoul High Court Decision 63Gu234 delivered on August 18, 1964
We reverse the original judgment.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the defendant's attorney and the litigation performer, and the grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's assistant attorney.
Of the disqualified persons under Article 9 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, a person who has a fact, such as a false report, shall be construed as including a false report (see Supreme Court Decision 64Nu83, Sept. 15, 1964). It cannot be viewed that the false report refers to only to the requirements for lease or sale of the property devolving to the State. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, even if the plaintiff prepares a false certificate of de facto possession necessary for the procedure for filing a lease application procedure and makes a false report to the government authorities, the court below held that the de facto possessor cannot be deemed as a false report unless the de facto possessor rents or sells the property devolving to the government authorities, so the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the law on the grounds for disqualification of the buyer as stipulated in the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, and therefore, the court below's reasoning is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court by the assent of all Justices No. 101, Oct. 15, 20198>
Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court