[부동산매매계약취소처분취소][집13(1)행,007]
Whether a dependent who owns a house on the site devolving upon the person who occupies the house and lives together with the person who occupies the site meets the requirements under Article 10 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to State
A person who is a dependent of the owner of a house on the land devolvingd for the purpose of residence and lives together with the house is actually used for the house, and has the right to lease.
Article 10 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction
Hawk-Sek
The Director General of Busan
Daegu High Court Decision 63Gu76 delivered on June 23, 1964
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, a lease contract was concluded in the name of the defendant with the defendant as to the site to which this case belongs in the name of the defendant's assistant intervenor, but the defendant's intervenor held that since the defendant's intervenor owned the house on the site of this case and supported by the defendant's 2 South Korea under the Non-party's flight rule, it is not the possessor of the site of this case, and therefore
However, the purpose of Article 10 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State is to provide that only the person who uses the property in reality is the tenant with a right to purchase the property belonging to the State in order to prevent it by recognizing the tenant's qualification even to the person who does not actually use the property belonging to the State in order to dispose of the property effectively and effectively. Therefore, in this case, it is interpreted that the non-party 1's dependents who are the owners of the house belonging to the non-party 1, who actually uses the land for the delivery of the defendant's participation in the house (if it does not fall under any limitation provision under Article 10 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, it would be consistent with the social situation, and it would not be contrary to the legislative intent of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State. Therefore, if the non-party 2-2 transferred the right to the land in question to the plaintiff as the representative of the defendant 1's assistant, and if the plaintiff concluded the lease contract with the approval instead of the plaintiff, it cannot be discussed.
Therefore, the decision of the court below is delivered with the assent of all participating judges in order to re-examine and determine the existence of the special group's circumstances as above.
Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu