The application of the lawsuit and the lawsuit law to seek the revocation of the disposition of the sale of property devolving upon the State.

In filing a lawsuit seeking a cancellation of the disposition of devolving property, it shall be governed by the provisions of the petition council on vested property first, and where the above provisions are not prescribed, it shall be governed by the rules of the source in relation to the general law.

Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Law No. 213), Article 1 of the Litigation Act (Law No. 211)

Plaintiff

Director General of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Government

The plaintiff's principal lawsuit shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As of October 26, 4286, the administrative disposition that the Defendant sold the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Nonparty is revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant’s right to appeal against the said real estate should be borne by the Defendant. The real estate listed in the separate sheet is owned by the company to which the Plaintiff originally belonged. The Nonparty asserted that the ground building was newly constructed as of August 20, 4278, and that the Nonparty was the sole person who was the sole person who had the right to appeal against the sale of the real estate as of October 26, 4286. As such, the Plaintiff filed a petition to seek correction of the illegal fact as the annual person who was found to have discovered the illegal fact on May 27, 4292, but that petition was dismissed by the judgment on July 7 of the same year, and that the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on the twelve day of the same month, and thus, the Plaintiff was found to have been discovered as to the real estate as seen above.

The defendant's attorney sought a judgment on the disposition of sale of this case as of October 26, 4286 on the basis of this safety's defense and filed a petition as of May 27, 4292 with respect to the decision of sale of this case as of the short-term period of 4286 on the ground that it is improper for the plaintiff to dismiss the lawsuit in question as of May 27, 4292, and the plaintiff's claim as to the merits is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim is asserted that litigation costs should be borne by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim that this case was owned by the company as of May 27, 4292 as of the plaintiff's assertion. The plaintiff filed a petition as of May 27, 4292 on the date of the plaintiff's claim, but the appeal was dismissed on the 7th of the same year and the same rejection was delivered to the plaintiff on the

In other words, the defendant, as a short-term sale on October 26, 4286, sold to the non-party the property in question at the time of selling the exhibition enterprise to the non-party, such sale does not constitute an unlawful act such as load, etc., and as well, the person holding the interest in the property in question refers to the person who is recognized as a relative from the government authorities in charge in case where there was a fact that the property in question was subject to an administrative disposition on the property in question or there was a fact that the property in question was possessed in combination with sections of the property in question. Thus, even if the plaintiff discovered the illegal act as asserted by the plaintiff, it does

First, as to the legality of the lawsuit, the defendant's disposition of sale of the main case is short-term on October 26, 4286, and the plaintiff's filing of the appeal against the disposition is short-term on May 27, 4292, because there is no dispute between the parties, the appeal is filed in the past five years and seven months after the administrative disposition is taken. In the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the administrative disposition, the plaintiff shall file the appeal before it. In the case of the property to which it belongs, the procedure shall be governed by the provisions of the Council on Petitions on Property to which it belongs, and in the absence of such provisions, the procedure shall be governed by the law related to the general law. Accordingly, the peremptory period of Article 9 of the Regulations on Appeal shall apply to the parties to the administrative disposition in which the administrative disposition is in a position to receive the notification of the administrative disposition and the person who is not in a position to receive the notification of the administrative disposition shall not be filed within 3 months after the date on which the administrative disposition should have been taken in accordance with Article 3 of the above Act.

In this case, the plaintiff's petition filed for the time of war is illegal because it is not illegal with the intention of a peremptory term, so the principal lawsuit is dismissed by recognizing it as unlawful without going through a judgment on the merits because there is no legitimate petition, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Hong Il-il (Presiding Judge)