Main Issues

In spite of the fact that there is a charge to prove the illegal transfer of property devolving upon the State, such a mistake in the determination of the evidence.

Summary of Judgment

The defendant alleged that there was no illegality in the administrative disposition of the defendant as the plaintiff was illegally transferred to the defendant, and according to the Eul 7 evidence (the original copy of the judgment) submitted to prove it, the court below decided that there was no evidence to confirm the plaintiff's illegal transfer to the defendant without any special reason to deny the value of the evidence of the plaintiff, which is contrary to the rules of evidence selection by erroneous determination of evidence in violation of the rules of law.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 34(2) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Plaintiff-Appellee

Senior Down-gu

Defendant-Appellant

The Director General of the Seoul Metropolitan Government

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Park Gyeong-Gyeong

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 60Da39 delivered on November 23, 1960

Reasons

The first ground is that there is no illegality in the defendant's administrative disposition. The defendant presented evidence Nos. 1 through 7 in order to argue that the plaintiff's assistant intervenor or non-party Park Jong-won and to prove the defendant's assertion, but the original judgment also has no evidence to recognize the defendant's illegal transfer of the building by the defendant's transfer of the building. According to the evidence Nos. 7 and 4164 in 4292, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul District Court against the defendant's assistant intervenor No. 4164 in 41 in 4292, the plaintiff's purchase of the building Nos. 57 in Jung-gu, Seoul District Court and No. 24 in 27 in 47 in 27 in 27 in 2009 in 400 in 27 in 4000 in 27 in 4000 in 2000 in 400 in 2700 in 400 in 201 in 2004.