[행정처분취소][집10(3)행,018]
Relationship between the purchase of property devolving upon the person not in possession and the disposal of property devolving upon the person
This article is a provision on the priority of the right of preferential sale, which excludes the possibility of becoming the purchaser of the property devolving upon the State, not the lessee or the possessor, and it can be a legitimate purchaser of the property devolving upon the State, not the possessor, unless there is a ground for disqualification of the purchaser.
Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Asset Disposal Act
80,000
Daegu Director General of the Office of Government Administration
Daegu High Court Decision 61Na82 delivered on March 29, 1962
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the lawsuit shall not be deemed to exclude the fact that a person who is not a tenant or a possessor of the property devolving upon the State may become a legitimate purchaser of the property devolving upon the State, unless there is any ground for disqualification from the purchaser. Thus, it cannot be recognized that there is a ground for disqualification or other violation of laws mentioned above in the disposition of sale of the property devolving upon the State, and so long as the right of the plaintiffs is acquired due to the sale of the property in this case, if the right of the plaintiffs is infringed upon due to the violation of the public interest, there should be a clear need for public interest that would justify the infringement of the right of vested rights. However, the defendant's disposition of revocation is unlawful, as long as the non-party's best decoration is a refugee and the possessor of the property devolving upon the State is not a legitimate ground for revocation of the right of vested upon the ground that the right of vested upon the State is not a legitimate owner of the property devolving upon the State. This opinion is justified in the judgment below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of a special law or any unlawful interpretation.
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Jinjin-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man, the Mag-man, the Mag-man, the Mag-man,