(b) Where Korean shareholders of a domestic corporation have not exercised their rights as shareholders and such shareholders are not known, the validity of such ownership or disposal of property that is not subject to the proviso of subparagraph 4 of Article 8 of the Act on Asset Management; and

B. The sale of the property owned by a Korean shareholder of a domestic corporation that reverted to the shares is null and void without dissolution, even in cases where the Korean shareholder does not exercise his/her right and the shareholder cannot be identified.

According to the facts established in the original judgment, the land in question was originally owned by the non-party 1 corporation, a domestic corporation, and the corporation disposes of the property owned by the domestic corporation as the owner with 196,028 shares of 200,000 shares belonging to that domestic corporation, the corporation would sell the property after its dissolution pursuant to the proviso of Article 8 subparagraph 4 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, unless it disposes of the property owned by the corporation or otherwise dispose of the property belonging to that domestic corporation. In this case, although there is no room to apply the proviso of Article 8 subparagraph 1 of the same Act to this case, the Minister of Finance and Economy shall, with the consent of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, lease the land in question to the plaintiff, or sell it again after the lease of the land in question with the consent of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, or even if the land in question is in accordance with the resolution of the State Council, so long as the Act has no effect, it merely leases or sells the property owned by the other person without the authority.

On the second ground for appeal

The fact that the proviso of Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongings does not apply to the property owned by a domestic corporation is that there is no room for applying the proviso of Article 8 (1) of the same Act to the property owned by a Korean stockholder who is an electrical corporation and a Korean stockholder of the same non-party public corporation did not exercise his right at the first time, and that the shareholder cannot be identified by the shareholder registry, and that the stock owned by the same Korean person should be liquidated at the next time, and that the land was disposed of by the government authorities in violation of the legal principles of Article 2 (3) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongings (the proviso of Article 8 (4) of the same Act, 8 (2) of the same Act) and general judicial principles, and the discretion of the government authorities in this regard should be limited to strict legal discretion.

Justices Lee B-ho (Presiding Justice)