[행정처분취소][집10(1)행,003]
Competent Minister in charge of procedures for nationalization of property devolvingd
In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article, approval of the President shall be required in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article, and any nationalization measure taken without this procedure shall be legally effective. However, if approval of the President is obtained from the State Council as a result of the resolution of the State Council, it may be entrusted to the administration concerned with regard to the nationalization plan and the individual enforcement thereof, and if such procedures are followed, it shall be interpreted that the requirements of paragraph (1) of this Article are satisfied.
Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Articles 5(1), 4, 3, and 37 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction
[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of Si/Gun/Gu, Counsel for defendant-appellee
The Director General of the Seoul Metropolitan Government
New Promotion Business Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 4290Da116 delivered on December 21, 1960
The final appeal shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant and the intervenor Kim Young-young, the attorney Kim Young-young, are as shown in the grounds of appeal in the attached Form, and the plaintiff's answer by the defendant's attorney is as shown in the attached Form reply.
If the text is summary:
(1) According to Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, the State Council's resolution about nationalization plan is required to obtain the approval of the President, and the implementation process of tax items is delegated to the Ministry of Finance and Agriculture, which is the working authority, so the Ministry of Finance and Agriculture may revise and implement the above plan at the time of necessity from the national point of view in the Ministry of Finance and Agriculture, which is the working authority, and this case is deemed to be a nationalization of forests and fields, since the State has obtained the resolution of the State Council regarding the nationalization plan and changed the plan to the administration concerned as necessary.
In this paper, (1) Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State shall provide that the competent Minister shall obtain approval from the President through the Prime Minister as a resolution of the State Council, with respect to nationalization of property belonging to the State. Thus, in the nationalization of property belonging to the State, approval from the State Council is required, and any nationalization of property without this procedure shall be legally effective. However, in the method of obtaining approval from the State Council as a result of the State Council, it may be entrusted to the relevant administration with regard to the implementation of the nationalization plan, and in the case of individual execution of the plan, it is possible to follow the procedure on the basis that the procedure on the nationalization of property belonging to the State meets the requirements of Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property belonging to the State, and it is evident that the original judgment of the State shall not belong to the State Council, with respect to the forest or forest property belonging to the State, and it shall not belong to the State Council, with regard to the amendment of the Act on the Stateization of the State property belonging to the State.
This paper argues that the right to manage the property devolving upon the defendant was transferred to the Minister of Finance and Economy due to the enforcement of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State. Since the party joining the defendant, even if he obtained a loan of forest and field since December 30, 1957 from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry on December 30, 1957, it is merely a receipt of a loan from the non-exclusive management right holder, and the loan is null and void. Thus, it cannot be deemed an effective administrative disposition without any defects in the forest and field which the plaintiff received from the defendant on November 28, 1958, and therefore, it is not reasonable to deny the validity of the loan to the plaintiff under the independent interpretation that the loan of the defendant joining the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry from the defendant joining the State is valid.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant assistant attorney Cho Jong-chul, the defendant assistant attorney Kim Jae-chul was submitted after the expiration of the period stipulated in Article 397 of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, the decision shall not be made on the grounds of the appeal.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Supreme Court Judge Choi Mamo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)