[소유권이전등기말소청구사건][고집1967민,107]
Effect of the transfer of administrative property not disused;
Under the State Property Act, administrative property shall not be transferred or created private rights in principle as a property for administrative purposes. However, since it is exceptionally permitted to use or profit from the property to the extent that it does not interfere with the use or profit, if the administrative property was sold without disuse, it would be null and void by law.
Article 20 of the State Property Act
Supreme Court Decision 67Da131 delivered on April 25, 1967 (Kakad1148, Supreme Court Decision 15Nu347 delivered on June 15, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 67Da806 delivered on June 27, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 72Da1346 delivered on October 31, 197, Supreme Court Decision 203Da87 delivered on June 27, 196, Article 20(2)(2)88 of the State Property Act) (Supreme Court Decision 15Du116 delivered on June 27, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 72Da1346 delivered on October 31, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 72Da10271 delivered on June 1, 197, Supreme Court Decision 203
Korea
Defendant 1 and one other
Gwangju District Court Decision 65Ga1321 decided Jan. 1, 200
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.
With respect to the plaintiff, the defendant 1 performed the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration due to the sale between the plaintiff and the defendant on January 8, 1965, which was made on January 15, 1965 by the Gwangju District Court Decision No. 1577, Jan. 8, 1965 with respect to the 218 site No. 1072-2 site, Supo-si, 1075, and the defendant 2 performed the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration due to the sale between the defendants on July 13, 1965 as the above real estate No. 39850 as of July 12, 1965.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
The 218-2 site No. 1072-2 site No. 1072 is the administrative property originally owned by the plaintiff, which is the land for railroad, and the fact that Defendant 1 purchased from the plaintiff on January 8, 1965 and completed the procedure for transfer of ownership in his name and sold to Defendant 2 and completed the procedure for transfer of ownership in his name, as stated in the above purport of the claim, is no dispute between the parties.
The plaintiff's litigation performer, although he did not disuse the above site as a site for railroad uniforms, is a state-owned and general miscellaneous property and sold it to defendant 1. Thus, the sale disposition by the head of the tax office of the tax office of the tax office of the tax office of this case is invalid as it is in violation of the provisions of Article 18 of the State Property Act, which is a mandatory provision, and the above head of the tax office finds that the above site is an administrative property belonging to the traffic department, and then cancelled the above sale contract on July 27, 1965, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant et al. is null and void. The defendant et al.'s legal representative did not abolish the use as 1072-2 of the Sinpo-si, 1072-2 of the Sinpo-si, 1962, although he did not disuse the above site, and the number of the railroad lines of this case was set at 150 square meters, but it was sold to the defendant 1 as above.
First, even if the Plaintiff sold the instant site to Defendant 1 by mistake as alleged by the Plaintiff, the above sales contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 cannot be revoked. Second, as to the conclusion of the above sales contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1, Defendant 1 cannot cancel or cancel the above sales contract until six months have elapsed since the completion of the registration of ownership transfer. As to the instant site, the Plaintiff’s claim is unjust since Defendant 1 cancelled the above sales contract after six months have elapsed since the completion of the registration of ownership transfer.
Third, even if the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 was cancelled in its effect due to mistake, the plaintiff could not oppose the plaintiff against the defendant 2, who is a bona fide acquisitor of the real estate of this case. Thus, the administrative property of the Health Unit State Property Act is public in its administrative purpose and can not be transferred or created a private right within the limit of its purpose. However, as it is exceptionally permitted to use or profit within the limit of its purpose, it shall not be transferred to an individual even by any method or form until it has ceased to use or become an ordinary property. If the administrative property was sold without disuse, it shall be deemed as null and void by law. Thus, it shall be viewed as a matter of course as to whether the land of this case was abolished as a prior requirement for the disposition of transfer.
In full view of the verification results conducted by Gwangju regional tax office Eul, which does not dispute the establishment of Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2 (property list for use) and 150 (Evidence No. 7, which is non-party 1, 2, the witness non-party 1 and 2's testimony part of the above court below's partial verification results, it is difficult to believe that the witness's testimony part of the above court below's witness 1,438 was non-party 3's testimony, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the witness's testimony was insufficient to prove that the non-party 3's testimony was non-party 4 and non-party 5's testimony and other evidence to prove that the witness's testimony was non-party 3's oral report prepared in accordance with the employee's testimony, and there is no evidence to prove that the witness's testimony was non-party 4 and non-party 6's testimony as it is, and there is no other evidence to prove that the witness's testimony was non-party 3.
If so, even if the abolition of the above 1-42 discussion 150 square meters, it is not related to the 1072 large 2-2 large 218 square meters, it is not related to the 1072 large 2-2 large 218 square meters, so the above 218 large 218 square meters should not be subject to sale as administrative property that does not necessarily disuse, and thus, the plaintiff's disposition on the above land against the defendant 1 should be automatically null and void without being subject to the plaintiff's disposition of cancellation, and the registration of transfer of ownership by the defendant 1 and 2, which was made in sequence due to the above sale disposition is all null and void.
Therefore, as to the defense of the defendant et al., which is based on the premise that the cancellation of a sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is unreasonable, a daily claim for the plaintiff's principal lawsuit should be accepted without any further review. Accordingly, the original judgment with the same conclusion is just and the appeal by the defendant et al. is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Yong-dae (Presiding Judge)