The validity of the act of transferring the right of lease of a site without a prior approval of the competent Minister by a domestic corporation under Article 2 (2) of the Reversion Property Disposal Act

Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act which applies mutatis mutandis under this section requires the prior approval of the competent Minister for the re-lease of land, buildings, or other activities listed in the same Article. However, this provision is interpreted not to be null and void since the internal supervisory regulations on the execution of affairs, which are domestic laws, do not necessarily require the invalidation of acts in violation of this provision, and it does not cause any complaint to the effect of such acts.

Articles 2(2), 31, and 34 of the Act on the Reversion of Property; Article 39 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Reversion of Property;

Korea Industrial Corporation

The Director General of Seoul Government

Seoul High Court Decision 62Ra1 delivered on July 10, 1962

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff of retrial.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff Kim Young-young, a new appellate court, dismissed the plaintiff's claim that it is illegal to transfer the right of lease to the real estate of this case from the non-party rubber Co., Ltd. (hereinafter simply rubber Co., Ltd.), but the decision of the court below was unlawful, and it was remanded to the court below for a decision of final appeal prior to the new appellate trial to determine the above point of view. However, the above rubber Co., Ltd.'s transfer of the right of lease to the defendant joining the defendant of this case's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new appellate court's new decision's new appellate court's new decision's new appellate court's new appellate court's new judgment's new appellate court's new rejection.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Cho Jin-man (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Decision 2010Hun-Ma880 delivered on April 1, 201