logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대법원 1960. 3. 11. 선고 4291행상9 판결
[행정처분취소][집8행,011]
Main Issues

(a) A petition filed with a prior knowledge of the disposal of property devolvingd;

(b) Scope of a petition demanding the cancellation or modification of disposal of property devolvingd;

Summary of Judgment

A petition on any property devolving upon the State shall, when the petition is quoted, have its effect on a joint basis on other disposition which cannot be together together with the same property.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 39 of the Act on Asset Disposal for Reversion

Plaintiff-Appellee

Z. L. L. L. L.S.

Defendant-Appellant

Secretary-General of Gyeongnam-do

Intervenor joining the Defendant-Appellant

Sychomamama

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 57Ra6 delivered on October 4, 1957

Reasons

In a case where there is an administrative disposition on the property devolving upon the first place, and where the administrative agency concerned has accepted it without rejecting it, and then converted it to a legitimate appeal after the administrative disposition was taken, there is no reason to deny the validity of the appeal. In this case, according to the records and the original judgment, the plaintiff filed a petition against the defendant on August 28, 1956, which was the short-term period prior to the notification of the disposition, against the defendant's supplementary intervenor's disposal of the property, pursuant to the records and the original judgment, the plaintiff detection that the defendant would cancel the disposal of the property devolving upon the plaintiff, and filed a petition against the plaintiff on August 29, 1956, which was the short-term period prior to the notification of the disposition, against the defendant's disposal of the property devolving upon the defendant's supplementary intervenor's disposal of the property. The defendant'

On the second ground for appeal

A petition seeking cancellation or change of an administrative disposition on the property devolving upon the defendant's supplementary intervenor shall not be deemed to have its effect on the same property jointly with any other administrative disposition that can not coexist with each other when the petition or lawsuit is accepted. In this case, even if the plaintiff's appeal sought cancellation of the disposition of cancellation of the disposition of cancellation of the sale to the plaintiff against the plaintiff, the purport of the appeal shall be accepted in the principal lawsuit, so long as the disposition of the sale to the plaintiff is restored as long as the disposition of the sale to the plaintiff is accepted in the principal lawsuit, the disposal of the same property to the defendant's supplementary intervenor that cannot exist must be inevitably revoked. Thus, the appeal shall be deemed to have been included in the purport of seeking cancellation of the sale disposition to the

Justices White-sung (Presiding Justice)