Definitions of a good relative with respect to property devolving upon the State

Even if the property devolving upon the State was transferred from Japan, the original owner after the 8.15 Seas, it is legally null and void, and it is punished without the approval of the competent authorities, and the person who arbitrarily occupies or uses the property devolving upon the State without the approval of the competent authorities can not be regarded as a good relative under the Act on the Disposal of Property devolvingd upon the State.

Article 15 of the Act on Asset Disposal for Reversion

Attorney Han Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant at the same time

The interest of the representative branch of Gyeonggi-do

The Director-General of the Representative of the Government of Gyeonggi-do;

Seoul High Court Decision 53Do23 delivered on October 21, 1953

The main body is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff's representative is that the original judgment is without merit and is in good faith. The original judgment on the ground that the plaintiff acquired the vehicle from the main company of this case to the present time, regardless of whether this enterprise owned the original Japanese ancient city in the old city, and that the plaintiff continued to operate the vehicle without entering into a regular rental agreement with the government authorities until now, there is no theory between the original defendant. The so-called formal contract refers to the contract in writing, and therefore, it is not a written contract, but has been actually operated until now by the appellant, so long as the original judgment is recognized that there is no dispute between the original defendant, and that it is a public notice in the Yok-gu and Pyeongtaek-gun-gun, which is the location of the original company, even if the original judgment is stated in the defendant's answer and reasons, it is inconsistent with the fact that the original judgment cannot be recognized, and it cannot be seen as a comprehensive concealment or concealment of the real estate as an unlawful act or concealment of the appellant's judgment, and it cannot be seen that it will belong only to the facts of the appellant and the appellant.

It is against the rules of evidence that the original judgment violated the rules of evidence. (1) Even if the plaintiff illegally concealed the building of this case, it is judged that the building of this case was not in the name of the Japanese Doctrine, and that the name of the plaintiff was entered in the name of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was not reported for the purpose of collecting taxes from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was not concealed. (2) The court below rejected the 8-year old Doctrine's certificate (Evidence 2) that the 4-year old Doctrine's certificate was not in the name of the 5-year old Doctrine's old Appellant's old Appellant's old Appellee's 5-year old Appellant's old Appellant's old Appellant's old Appellant's old Appellant's present Appellant's 5-year old Appellant's old Appellant's old Appellant's old Appellant's present Appellant's 5-year old Appellant's old Appellant's present Appellant's present 5-year Appellant's present 7.

The third point of the above judgment is erroneous in the misapprehension of the purport of the law. The purpose and the third point of the original judgment is to lease property devolving upon the company and to the effect that the property devolving upon the company should be leased with preference to others, and the original judgment has been continuously operated for 7,8 years, while recognizing the fact that the appellant has been operating for 7,00 consecutive years, the original judgment only adopts evidence contrary to the other party, and denies the legitimate relationship of the appellant by rejecting the official document proving the allegation of the appellant, and eventually, the original judgment is ultimately erroneous in the misapprehension of the purport of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging upon the State

According to the records of the court below, the plaintiff's branch office was selected as the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's own properties for sale.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)