[매매계약해제처분취소][집13(2)행,016]
Whether there is a benefit in the protection of rights to seek cancellation of the sale or cancellation of the property devolving upon the person who acquired the property due;
A person who has purchased the property devolving upon the original purchaser before the transfer has a legal and specific interest in the claim for the cancellation of the disposition of non-performance on the original purchaser.
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Plaintiff
The Head of Seoul Southern District Office
Intervenor joining the Defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 65Gu41 delivered on May 25, 1965
The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court, the direct party to the disposition of cancellation of the disposition of selling the land belonging to the defendant, which is the subject of the lawsuit, is the non-party 1 who purchased the land of this case from the non-party 2, and the plaintiff is currently holding ownership. Thus, the claim of this case is not filed by the non-party 1 based on the direct relation of rights under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the defendant's disposition of this case, which is the subject of this case, but if the non-party 1 becomes the plaintiff, he may not be filed, but the plaintiff directly becomes the party, and the plaintiff has no interest in the protection of rights. However, the person whose rights are infringed by the illegal administrative disposition can file an administrative lawsuit with the court in order to seek cancellation or modification of the disposition, and even if it is a third party, if there is a specific interest in the cancellation or modification of the disposition, it can be filed as the plaintiff, barring any special circumstances. Accordingly, the defendant's disposition of cancellation against the non-party 1 is revoked.
Therefore, despite the fact that the original judgment was qualified as the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed due to its dissenting opinion, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the party's qualification in the administrative litigation, and it is obvious that the judgment influenced the judgment, and the original judgment is reasonable and the reversal of the original judgment is not dismissed.
It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kimchi-bak (Presiding Judge) Dog-do and Mag-dong and Mag-do, Hansung Pung-do, Hansung Lung-do, the Mag-gu, the Choi