Determination of disuse of State Property

Unless there are special circumstances, the disposition of disuse of administrative property can only be made by the office of administration, and the office of general administration has the authority to request the office of administration.

Article 13(1) of the State Property Act

Republic of Korea (Attorney Allocation)

Defendant 1 and five others (Attorneys Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na549 delivered on January 25, 1966

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

1. The defendants' grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 4 as well as No. 2 of the grounds of appeal are examined even after completion of the same representative.

We examine the original judgment by comparing this evidence with the record;

It is legitimate for the court below to recognize the real estate as the administrative property (school intersection) in the custody of the Seoul National University under the jurisdiction of the head of the Seoul National University. According to the testimony of Non-Party 1 by Non-Party 1 of the court below which adopted the original judgment, it can be seen that the original real estate is registered in the register of the state property in the Seoul National University, which is the custody office. There are circumstances such as the theory that the office of administration did not report in accordance with Articles 33, 34 and the relevant Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act to the Minister of Finance and Economy, and there is no reason to believe that the original real estate, which is the administrative property under the jurisdiction of the head of the literature delivery department, is an ordinary property, or is converted into the general property, or has not been managed under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. In other words, the argument

In addition, it cannot be said that the court below acknowledged the fact that the court below exchanged the non-party 2's possession and the non-party 132's possession and the non-party 2's possession and the non-party 2's possession and the non-party 132's possession, which was located on the north side of the land south of the building in question at a certain time by the evidence No. 8 of this case

2. The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4 of the same Kim Jong-chul are examined.

Although the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is identical to the legal relationship in private law, since there are special provisions on the administration and disposal of state property under the State Property Act, it should be applied in preference to the private law as a special provision on the private law, and the conclusion cannot be different because the third party, such as the theory of lawsuit, is regarded as damage, so the argument that the State Property Act cannot be applied to this case cannot be adopted.

3. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 3 of the same Kim Jong-chul and the grounds of appeal No. 3.

Unless there are special circumstances, the disposition to abolish the use of administrative property can only be made by the Office of Administration, and the provisions of Article 13(1) of the State Property Act, if deemed necessary, shall be concluded to grant the Office of Finance and Economy, which is the general authority of the Office of Finance and Economy, the authority of the Office of Finance and Economy to request the abolition of the use of administrative property, and it shall not be the provision that grants the Office of Finance and Economy, other than the Office of Administration, the authority of the Office of Finance and Economy to directly dispose of the administrative property under the provision, and the argument against the original judgment is without merit

The administrative property shall not be transferred or established private rights unless it has been disposed of by the Office of Administration. Thus, even if the original judgment misleads the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry as one of the administrative property under his jurisdiction, which is not the Office of Administration of this case, the disposition shall be null and void, and therefore, the Minister of Finance and Economy sold the property, which is in the nature of the administrative property, to Defendant 1 as miscellaneous property. Accordingly, it is reasonable to determine that the sale is null and void as a matter of course, and the opposing argument is groundless.

In addition, even though the National Property Investigation Committee organized under subparagraph 13 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry decided to sell this case's property, according to the result of the above committee's investigation, the original judgment has become final and conclusive, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry's disposition of disuse was made by mistake as one's own property, and the fact finding is legitimate, and it is recognized that the disposition of disuse of this case's property is based on the proviso of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Disposal of National Property, or has been processed through the procedure provided in paragraph (2) of the same Article. Therefore, there is no error

4. The final appeal is without merit, and all of the costs of the lawsuit are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges at the costs of the losing party.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu