Main Issues
Whether an act of taking over an unauthorized right of lease and whether such right exists
Summary of Judgment
Only the act of taking over a right of lease that is not authorized by the agency of the public interest can not be recognized as the right of association.
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 15 and 29 of the Act on Property Belonging to Jurisdiction
Plaintiff-Appellant
In the case of a two-class minor, the father of a person with parental authority (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Defendant-Appellee
Seoul Special Metropolitan City Director-General and one other (the defendant-appellant, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Intervenor joining the Defendant
Kim Shin-deok
The court below
Seoul High Court
Text
The final appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
Reasons
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's party 2'.
However, the court below held that, in case where the plaintiff's assertion of the creation of the court below is accepted and used the part of the dispute of this case with the consent of the tenant of this case in 1951 and Kim Jong's performance is not repaid by March 20 of the same year, it can be recognized that he received without compensation pursuant to an agreement that he will transfer the right of lease for the dispute of this case without compensation, but in case of the case of this case where the former authority's failure to grant the right of lease for the part of this case, the plaintiff's family member cannot be recognized as the right holder, and it cannot be found that the plaintiff's action of this case is unlawful, such as the theory of the court below's action, because it is obvious that the plaintiff's family member does not have any infringement of the right of lease for Ha, etc. due to the defendant's disposition of this case, and as long as the premise is denied in the lawsuit of this case with respect to the second possession point, it is without merit to determine the fact.
Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)