(b) State-owned measures on the property of a Dormant Corporation shall not be included in the sale or lease contract under Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Belonging Property.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

However, in this case where it is clear that competition forest land is the property belonging to the original dormant corporation and the government took measures to nationalize it, such disposition shall not be justified because it is made by an unauthorized government agency. Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Property Belonging to the State (Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Property Belonging to the State) provides that "if any interested party fails to file a lawsuit within two months from the enforcement date of the Act, it shall be deemed that it has been disposed of pursuant to the provisions of this Act and Article 8 of the Act on the Management of Property Belonging to the State". However, in light of the above Article 1 (2) (4) of the Act and Article 8 of the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Property Belonging to the State, nationalization of property belonging to the State shall not be included in the sale or lease contract as stipulated in Article 4 of the Addenda to the above Act, and it is not legitimate for the court below to hold the first decision as the first opinion that it is legitimate for the plaintiff's authority to state invalidation.

judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 4, and 5 by that agent;

(1) Since it is apparent in light of the provisions of Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Minister of Finance and Economy or the Director-General of the Local Government Office, the competent authority of the Dormant Corporation's property is an obvious in light of the provisions of Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Property Belonging to the State, there is no ground to

(2) On the premise that the Plaintiff’s claim for nationalization of the disputed forest land is justifiable, the Plaintiff’s assertion that (1) the act of trading between Nonparty Dormant Corporation’s liquidator and Defendant 3 constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order, and (2) or the liquidator of the above lawsuit’s lawsuit’s rescission of the sales contract to Defendant 3 is against social order. However, according to the records, the court below held that a disposition of nationalization is a disposition of invalidation, and there is no need to be legalized under the Act on Special Measures, and that the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless, and as long as the above nationalization measure is null and void as a matter of course, there is no other assertion of the Plaintiff as long as the above nationalization measure is null and void, it cannot be said that there is no reason to believe that there is no other assertion of the Plaintiff. Thus, the judgment of the court below, which points out the issue, and there is no illegality of law due to the lack of the right to ask for name, and thus, there

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)