[귀속기업체매매계약복구처분취소][집14(2)행,052]
Nature of the right of association under the Jurisdiction of Property Act
In this Act, the term "right to file a complaint" means a right to file a separate claim for confirmation, so long as it is impossible to file a complaint against a person who has a legal relationship between the property devolving upon the original property until the property devolving upon the original property is sold, as long as the period for filing a lawsuit against a provisional right claim to be purchased preferentially until the property devolving upon the original property is sold.
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Minister of Finance and Economy (Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Purpose Industrial Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 63Gu9 delivered on April 9, 1964
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. As to the grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff (Attorney Shin Young-ju and Dong-nam, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Even after comparing the original judgment with the records, the court below did not find that there was an error of logical rules or rules of experience in the process or contents of the evidence preparation and fact-finding, and it can be seen to the purport that the court below rejected the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 17 and Nos. 20, which are the exclusive matters of the court below's prior jurisdiction, on the premise of the independent value judgment of evidence. Thus, there is no argument to criticize the evidence preparation and fact-finding, which are the whole matters of the court below's prior jurisdiction.
The judgment of the court below that held that the above plaintiff's attorney's second ground for appeal cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course solely on the ground that the disposition revoking the administrative disposition was a disposition revoking the administrative disposition again, is a legitimate and independent opinion.
Each of the grounds of appeal No. 3 of the above plaintiffs' third parties, and the original judgment does not mean that the plaintiff had no right to appeal against the validity of the disposition on cancellation. Even if the plaintiff had a relationship with the plaintiff as asserted by the plaintiff, the right to appeal under the Act on the Disposal of Property devolvingd to the plaintiff refers to the right to purchase preferentially at the time of the sale of the property devolvingd to the plaintiff, when the person having a legal relationship with the property devolvingd to the plaintiff, until the sale of the property devolvingd to the plaintiff, and it is a temporary right until the sale of the property devolvingd to the plaintiff. This is a temporary right until the sale of the property devolvingd to the plaintiff. Thus, if the sale of the property devolvingd to the plaintiff becomes final and conclusive and it is not possible to dispute it, it shall not be useful to separately claim the right to appeal to the plaintiff. In this case, since the plaintiff's sale of the enterprise to the plaintiff to the plaintiff, it is clear that the period of lawsuit for cancellation has already been established, and in this case, it is not reasonable to dispute about the plaintiff's preferential rights to the plaintiff 16.
The plaintiff Yoon-nam's ground of appeal No. 4 was examined, and it is apparent on the record that the period of the plaintiff's lawsuit was elapsed on..............." in the court below's judgment, the plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 4 was examined, and it is obvious in the court's decision that the plaintiff's lawsuit against the cancellation of the case was already filed, and it is not erroneous in the court below's above recognition.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.
Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro