[귀속재산매각처분취소청구사건][고집1961특,203]
The validity of a disposition of sale by an appropriate authority for farmland to be distributed;
Since the land of this case from the date of Japanese colonial era to the date when the plaintiff was cultivated continuously even after the date of Japanese colonial era, it is clear that it is the land of the nature to be distributed to the plaintiff under the Farmland Reform Act pursuant to the proviso of Article 2(1) of the Farmland Reform Act. Therefore, since the Director General of the Office of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City has no authority to dispose of the land of this case, the sale disposition of this case cannot be invalidated.
Article 2 of the Act on Property Disposal for Reversion
Supreme Court Decision 63Da142 delivered on May 9, 1963 (Article 2(35)9 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging, 7524) 65Da204 delivered on April 20, 1965 (Article 2(39 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, 1855)
Plaintiff
Director General of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Government
On March 31, 4288, the defendant confirmed that the administrative disposition that the defendant sold to the non-party 1 against the non-party 3 to 526 square meters in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 31, 428.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The plaintiff's attorney sought a judgment on the order Dong-dong's land, and this real estate was originally owned by the plaintiff as the reason for the original reason and continued to cultivate for not less than 15 years from this year to this date, and built up up to about 6 square meters on the date. However, the plaintiff's non-party 1, who is a literacy farmer, submitted the plaintiff's farmland distribution application as soon as possible on April 4, 292, and made an unfair sales contract with the defendant's authority for the transfer of ownership on December 11, 4292 after obtaining the transfer of ownership from the defendant on August 2, 4293, but this real estate was actually farmland, so the defendant's government did not have the authority to dispose of this real estate, and thus, he submitted the certificate of No. 1 and the certificate of No. 4 to the non-party 2, and submitted the certificate of No. 1 and the certificate of No. 3, which were proved to be invalid. 4, and each of the defendant's evidence No. 1 and the evidence No. 4. 1.
Defendant 1’s litigation performer and Defendant 1’s assistant intervenor’s litigation representative shall be dismissed on the merits of this case. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty 1 on November 1, 4287 and sold the property on March 31, 428 at the request of Nonparty 1, 428. The Plaintiff filed a petition against this on September 21, 4293. This is an appeal with respect to the peremptory period of not less than five years and five months after the above disposition, and the peremptory period has elapsed, and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed on the merits. The costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and it is acknowledged that the Defendant was subject to an administrative disposition as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, but the Defendant did not have any legal interest as to the sale of the real property under Article 281 of the Act. The Plaintiff did not have any legal interest as to the sale of the real property under Article 481 of the same Act. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the real property under this case would have been distributed as farmland as alleged by the Plaintiff.
In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, i.e., an appeal litigation against an administrative disposition, which requires the strict filing period, but in a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition, it is clear that it is a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition, which is the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition, and therefore, the plaintiff's defense that the plaintiff did not file an appeal within the peremptory period is H, etc. The defendant's defense that the plaintiff was not entitled to seek the invalidation of the administrative disposition is groundless. As to the merits, the fact that the defendant sold and disposed of to the non-party 1 on March 31, 4288 of the short-term 436, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 31, 428, the fact that the plaintiff sold and disposed of to the non-party 1, as a result of verification and the testimony of the non-party 3, the real estate is not likely to be subject to the plaintiff's right to seek the invalidation of the administrative disposition, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for nullification of the land will not be subject to the plaintiff's authority.
Judges Kim Jae-ok (Presiding Judge)