Administrative disposition and appeal period on the property devolvingd

The period of appeal against an administrative disposition on the property devolving upon the State shall not be governed by the Sub-Appeal Act, but shall be governed by the provisions of the Deliberative Committee on Petitions on Property Belonging upon

Articles 2, 5, 39, and 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 9 of the Rules on Petitions for Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Kim Jong-woo, Attorney Oh Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Head of the Office of Government Administration in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Obisung (Attorney Obi-sung)

[Defendant-Appellant] Kim Jong-woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant]

Seoul High Court Decision 54Do249 delivered on June 30, 1955

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's attorney-at-law's ground of appeal is without theory between the parties concerned that the defendant entered into a sales contract on the real estate as of September 22, 1954, and that the plaintiff's appeal was unlawful because it was about May 16, 1955. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed because it was found that the plaintiff's appeal was defective in the plaintiff's main appeal requirement, and it was judged that the plaintiff's appeal did not contain any error of law as to the plaintiff's appeal period's 6th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the initial date of the appeal period's appeal period's 19th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the initial date of the appeal period's appeal, the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff's appeal was not made, the 195th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the defendant's main appeal period's appeal period's No.

In accordance with the above reasons, the judgment of the court below is eventually unable to dismiss the reversal.

According to Article 3 of the Inquiry Agency Act, a petitioner shall file a complaint within three months from the date when he becomes aware of an administrative disposition, which shall be filed within one month from the date of the administrative disposition. However, this provision applies to general cases, and since administrative litigation on property devolving upon the State has stipulated the appeal system and its procedure in accordance with the provisions of the Deliberation Council on Petitions on Property to Which the Special Act belongs, it shall be reasonable to interpret that Article 3 of the Exhibition Costs Act is unfair. Thus, since the original judgment is recognized as an unlawful judgment, it shall be deemed that the original judgment is erroneous. Thus, the court below shall not dismiss the appeal since it is recognized that the original judgment is erroneous. Accordingly, the court below shall deliberate at the time when the date when the plaintiff becomes aware of the disposition of this case and determine the expiration of the period of appeal, and it shall be decided as per Disposition pursuant to Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act to

Justices Kim Byung-o (Presiding Justice)