[행정처분취소][집11(2)행,083]
Article 11(2) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership where a lessee leased from an administrative agency on the premise of the construction of a salted factory passes ten months without the construction of a factory; or
If the land devolving upon the construction of a factory is leased, the fact that ten months have elapsed without the construction of the factory is the housing site and the main sentence of paragraph (2) of this Article cannot be applied.
Article 11(2) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction
Kim Dong-dong (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
The Director General of Busan
Daegu High Court Decision 62 Gu1 delivered on March 26, 1963
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The first ground of appeal by the defendant litigation performer is examined.
However, the court below is duly decided by evidence, so long as the defendant recognized the plaintiff as a legitimate relative to this property and recognized the fact that the land was leased to the plaintiff as of February 7, 1961 on the premise that the plaintiff constructed a building necessary for salting factory facilities other than the personal-use housing for the purpose of the business plan, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment even if the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff had no intention to use the land as a site for salting factory, notwithstanding the plaintiff's initial intention to use it as a site for the salting factory, or that the plaintiff renounced the business plan and expressed his intention to use the land as a site for the personal-use housing without a factory construction, only after the ten-month lapse without a factory construction, the main sentence of Article 11 (2) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership cannot be applied because the land in this case is a site for the personal-use housing, and therefore, even if the court below erred in the misapprehension of the lease by the defendant until the cash.
In addition, the judgment of the court below is affirmed, and the non-party Kim Byung-sik is a person who is unable to rent the land in accordance with Article 27 and Article 12 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, and the non-party Kim Hong constructed a provisional building on this land without any contract with the defendant and cultivated its surrounding land, but it is not actually known that it is not possible to recognize the right of legal interest to the extent that the lease already concluded between the plaintiff and the plaintiff should be revoked, and that the business plan of No. 4 is false, it is not recognized by the court below. Thus, all arguments can not be adopted.
The second ground of appeal is examined.
However, according to the record, even if we look at the circumstances where the lease contract is made within 200 square meters of the whole purport of the defendant's argument, it is clear that the defendant did not lease the land to the non-party Kim Byung-sik under the purpose of use other than the personal house site, and there is no trace of the defendant's assertion that he leased the land to the non-party Kim Byung-type other than the personal house site. Therefore, it is groundless
The third ground of appeal is examined.
However, the judgment of the court below which held that the theory of theory of lawsuit is just, and the non-party Kim Byung-sik-dong Kim-dong's Kim Jong-dong is not a legitimate relative of this land as stated in the latter part of the judgment of the first ground for appeal. Therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss that it is a legitimate relative.
It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.
Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Justice Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)