The starting date of the period under Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Asset Management Act.

The fundamental purpose of Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Property Belonging to the State shall be the peremptory period that cannot be shortened by two weeks, which is the period prescribed in the same Article, and this shall not be calculated on the basis of the date when the newspaper company has entrusted the public with the notice, but it shall be publicly announced on the newspaper site in fact so that the public can be perused.

Article 12 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging

Plaintiff

Director General of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Government

The defendant's disposition of sales contract concluded between the defendant and the non-party 1 on January 12, 4289 for the short-term period of 4288 as to the 5 to 45 to 46 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 15 to 15 to 15 to 15 to 15 to 46 to 46 to 46 to 48.

The plaintiff confirmed the right of preferential purchase of the friendly property of the plaintiff of the lease agreement entered into with the defendant on February 20, 4287.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's legal representative is seeking a judgment on the order of the same 4th anniversary of the fact that it was originally owned by the non-party 1, and the plaintiff was not entitled to purchase the real estate after the short-term 4286 Seoul, and the plaintiff acquired the right of the former tenant on September 20 of the same year to use the real estate for the exhibition of the same church, and entered the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on February 20 of the same year. Since the plaintiff was attached to the new building on this 4th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff was not entitled to purchase the real estate for the short-term 4th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff was not entitled to purchase the real estate for the short-term 8th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff was not entitled to purchase the real estate for the short-term 4th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff was not entitled to purchase the real estate for the short-term 4th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff was not entitled to purchase the real estate for the second time after the second time, the plaintiff did not follow the public notice of the auction.

The plaintiff's legal representative is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's legal representative is the plaintiff's answer that the plaintiff's claim should be assessed against the plaintiff. The lease contract was concluded on the property of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant as of February 20, 4287, and the plaintiff submitted the preferential purchase price for the property of this case as of October 25, 4288. The plaintiff was not a participant in the bidding conducted as of November 23, 4288, and the defendant filed a petition with the plaintiff's head, and the plaintiff was not a participant in the bidding conducted as of November 28, 428. In other words, since the plaintiff submitted a preferential purchase for the property of this case, the defendant submitted the preferential purchase price for the property of this case to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was a person holding the preferential purchase price for the property of this case as of November 8, 428, and the plaintiff was a person holding the preferential purchase price for the property of this case as of November 28, 2008.

The plaintiff's preferential right to purchase the property is lost under Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State. The defendant, without any specific reason, submitted the plaintiff's preferential right to purchase the property at the 6th anniversary of the date of the bidding, to the plaintiff's preferential right to purchase the property without any specific reason, and the plaintiff's preferential right to purchase the property at the 6th anniversary of the public sale of the property at the 6th public sale without any specific reason. The plaintiff intentionally deprived the plaintiff's preferential right to purchase the property at the 2th public sale without any specific reason after the bidding's public notice of the first public sale of the property at the 4th public sale on the 4th public sale without any specific reason, and the defendant intentionally deprived the plaintiff's preferential right to purchase the property at the 6th public sale without any specific reason. The plaintiff's preferential right to purchase the property at the 3th public sale without any specific reason, such as the public notice of the first public sale without any specific reason that the plaintiff's preferential right to purchase should be announced to the plaintiff's preferential right to purchase.

As the plaintiff entered into a lease contract on February 20 of 4287 between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's preferential purchase on the well-known property as of October 25 of 4288, the plaintiff did not participate in the bidding conducted on November 23 of 4288, and the plaintiff filed an appeal with the subcommittee for the appeal on the property devolving upon the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not participate in the bidding for the short-term period of 8 weeks since the plaintiff did not participate in the bidding for the second period of 4 weeks on the ground that the plaintiff did not participate in the bidding for the second period of 18 weeks, the plaintiff's preferential purchase right to the plaintiff's property was lost on the ground that the defendant did not participate in the bidding for the second period of 18 weeks on the ground that the defendant did not participate in the bidding for the second period of 4 weeks on the ground that the public notice for the second period of 18 weeks on the sale of the property for the second period of 20 days on the ground that the public notice for the second period of 18 years on the sale was legitimate.

In other words, it is clear that the defendant has the preferential right to purchase the property in this case, because it is not possible for the defendant to avoid any illegality that does not comply with the peremptory period in the public announcement of the tender for the property of this case, and each administrative disposition of the defendant, which is premised on such illegality, is also illegal.

In the same sense, the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff's main claim on the ground of infringement of the preferential purchase right on the plaintiff's main property is deemed to be well-grounded without a judgment on the issues, and it is so decided in accordance with Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Hak-su (Presiding Judge)