The validity of an administrative disposition processed in accordance with the decision of the meeting for deliberation of the petition by accepting a petition after the period allowed for petition.

A petition refers to an appeal against the disposal of any property devolving upon it, regardless of its title.

If a petition council on property devolving upon the competent property deliberated and decided upon by a petition and the disposition agency processed in accordance with the decision, it shall not be deemed that the disposition is unlawful solely on the ground that the petition exceeds the period of time.

Article 39 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 9 of the Regulations on Petitions for Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Kim Jong-le

The Director General of Seoul Government

Seoul High Court Decision 61Do204 delivered on October 23, 1962

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The upper and lower levels of the Plaintiff’s attorney are as specified in the attached Table.

On the first ground for appeal

Article 9 of the former Regulations on Deliberation on Property Belonging to Jurisdiction (Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 29 May 27, 1950, No. 1957, Jan. 31, 1957, Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 135) means an appeal against the disposal of property devolving upon the name thereof, and even if a petition is filed after the lapse of the filing period stipulated in Article 9 of the same Regulation, if the petition is deliberated and decided upon by the Deliberation Council on Property Belonging to the State and the disposition authority handles the petition in accordance with the written decision, it cannot be said that the disposition by the disposition authority was unlawful merely because

The court below, based on its quoted evidence, acknowledged that the defendant revoked the lease and non-lease contract of this case to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff was leased on July 26, 1954 and received the appeal on September 27, 1954, and since the defendant's assistant intervenor filed a petition on August 20, 1954, but was dismissed by the Administrator of the Office of Government Administration, not the Council for Council for Council for Council for Council for Council for Council for Council for Council on Property Property of 1957, again filed a petition again on May 9, 1957, the decision of the Council for Council for Council for Appeal was made on May 28, 1958. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the decision of the Council for Council for Appeal was made on May 9, 1957.

The judgment on this point in the original judgment is inadequate in its explanation, but it is possible to read it to the above purport. Thus, there is no reason to view it merely because it is merely an assertion of concurrent legal opinion that the court below legitimately acknowledged the facts, under its own opinion, under the above legal opinion.

As to the second and third points of issue

Since Article 29 of the Act applies to the lease or management of property devolving upon the State, if the lease of the property devolving upon the State is made to another person despite the preferential right holder provided for in Article 15 of the same Act with respect to the lease of the property devolving upon the State, the lease can be cancelled as well as the lease can be cancelled as well as the lease can be cancelled as the lease without the premise of the existence of the lessee. The court below, based on the evidence of the acceptance, determined that the lease of the building site was based on the land which the non-party Han Jae-sik was leased from the defendant, and was in possession from March 15, 1953, and its lot number was 25 4 points different from that of the contract and the lease contract with the defendant Han Jong-sung. Thus, the plaintiff's application for change of the lease of the building site, which was lawfully indicated as 25 4 points of the original judgment, is without merit as well as the plaintiff's application for change of the right to lease the building site between the plaintiff and the non-party 136, as well as the above.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man