[행정처분취소][집2(5)행,023]
Relationship between the right to file an appeal for vested property and the lease or the disposal thereof;
If the plaintiff asserts his/her right of interest and seeks revocation of the lease agreement or disposition of the property devolving upon the plaintiff, even if the property had already been sold and sold, if the plaintiff is recognized to have legitimate right of interest on the property, the government authorities should first discuss that the lease or disposition of the property devolving upon the plaintiff's right of interest should not be exempted from illegality unless there are special circumstances.
Articles 15 and 29 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others
The Director of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office Lee Jae-ri, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Voluntary salary;
Seoul High Court Decision 54Do127 delivered on January 31, 1955
We reverse the original judgment.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is that the plaintiff's 2-year sales contract was concluded on June 30, 4287 with an assistant participant, and thus the contract cannot be cancelled or concluded on the building site unless the contract was revoked, or that the former 2-year sales contract was concluded on the first 7-year basis, and that the former 4-year basis was invalid on the second 6-year basis, and that the former 7-year basis was invalid on the second 6-year basis on the premise that the former 4-year basis was invalid on the second 6-year basis that the former 4-year sales contract was concluded on the second 6-year basis on the second 6-year basis that the former 6-year basis was invalid on the second 6-year basis that the former 6-year basis was invalid on the ground that the plaintiff's 2-year basis on the premise that the former 6-year basis was invalid on the ground that the latter's 2-year basis was invalid on the ground that the latter 3-year basis was rejected on the first 1-year basis.
In light of the records of this case, the court below found that the plaintiff asserted the right of annual appeal on the site of this case as the cause of the claim, and it was evident that the defendant and the assistant participant denied and disputed it by evidence among the reasons in its holding, and decided against the plaintiff to cancel or conclude the lease contract on the site of this case as long as the above contract was not cancelled, the court below did not decide on the issue of contribution and decided against the plaintiff. However, as the plaintiff asserted that his right of annual appeal is based on the existence of his right of annual appeal, the court below should first discuss other issues after the determination of the basic dispute which will be the premise of this case. If it is recognized that the plaintiff has legitimate right of annual appeal on the site of this case, barring special circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's right of annual appeal should be neglected and the other party's right of lease or non-performance should be reversed and remanded to the court below without merit. However, even if the plaintiff's right of annual appeal on the site of this case is not justified, the court below's decision shall be reversed and remanded.
Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)