[임대차계약취소][집11(2)행,007]
Whether a disposition to revoke the lease is a discretionary action by the administrative authority only for any one of the events in which a large number of vested property is delinquent.
The case rejecting the defense that the disposition of cancelling the lease of property devolving upon the State is beyond the scope of discretionary authority because it is limited to any case among the default cases in which the lease is revoked on the State.
Article 7 of the Act on Special Measures for Reversion Property Disposal
New Fluoride
The Director General of Seoul Government
Seoul High Court Decision 62Gu310 delivered on April 4, 1963
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer are as follows. In other words, the defendant's intent cannot be found if he was sub-speed by the head of office office in Seoul, and if he was sub-speed from among the cases of paying the fees for the transfer of property devolving upon the non-party, his intention of revoking the lease of the property devolving upon the non-party Lee Young-young. Therefore, the revocation of the lease agreement between the defendant and the defendant as of July 10, 1958, which was entered into between the defendant and the above-speak-young, is a head of office beyond the scope of the discretion of the head of office in Yongsan-do, and the court below asserted that the lease
According to the records, the defendant's defense, such as the argument at the court below, is true, but if based on the facts duly established by the court below, the administrative disposition by the head of the office in Seoul, the head of the office in charge of the branch office, pointing out the argument, cannot be deemed to be an exercise of extremely unfair discretionary power. Therefore, even though the court below omitted its judgment on this point, it cannot be seen as affecting the result of the court below's decision. Therefore, we cannot accept this issue
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Madon Pung-sapon Madon Lee Ho-man