[소유권확인][집17(2)민,013]
A person who has received the administrative decision on the cancellation of reversion pursuant to the simplified petition procedure may claim the ownership of the object and request the confirmation thereof, even if the Minister of Justice did not obtain the confirmation under Article 120 of the Act.
A person who has received the administrative decision on the cancellation of reversion pursuant to the simplified petition procedure may claim the ownership of the object and claim the confirmation thereof, even if the Minister of Justice did not obtain confirmation under this Act.
Law No. 120 No. 2(1)
Constitutional Committee of 4287 Constitutional Court Decision 68Da75 delivered on March 5, 1968, decided March 26, 1954
Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2283 delivered on December 27, 1968
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
According to Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Confirmation of Reversion Cancellation Order by Summary Appeal Procedure) 1 and Article 2 (1) of the Land Price pointing out, although the Central Office of the excessive government administrative disposition on the cancellation of reversion, which was processed by summary appeal procedure, shall lose its validity without obtaining the confirmation of the Minister of Justice, it cannot be said that the change in substantive rights to the object would result from the change in substantive rights (refer to the Constitutional Committee Decision 4287Hun-Ga1, March 26, 1954). Therefore, even though the administrative decision on the cancellation of reversion was made by summary appeal procedure, even if the plaintiff did not obtain the confirmation of the Minister of Justice under Article 120 of the above Act within the prescribed period, it shall be deemed that the ownership of the above site is available to the defendant and the defendant may be claimed such confirmation (refer to Supreme Court Decision 68Da75, Mar. 5, 1968).
No. 2, the record reveals that the plaintiff paid 9,00 won (the corresponding currency at the time) to the seller of the real estate in this case, and that there was a misunderstanding of the fact that the above 5,000 (the corresponding currency at the time) was paid by the seller of the real estate in this case, in light of the circumstances at the time when the plaintiff paid 9,000 won (the corresponding currency) to the seller of the real estate in this case, but when there was a change in real rights, it cannot be different from the intention that the plaintiff purchased the real estate in this case from the above North Rino, and therefore, it cannot be affected by the purport of the decision on the cancellation of the reversion. Therefore, the argument that there was an error of law in the incomplete hearing on the premise that the above decision is null and void is not accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)