(a) Whether the ownership of the reverted property is appropriate for exercising the right of revocation when the ownership is transferred before the due date;

B. Whether the ownership of the property devolving upon the State exists and Article 187 of the Civil Code does not apply to the property devolving upon the State for the period when the registration of ownership transfer is not cancelled after the disposition of the property devolving upon

(c) Cases of incomplete hearing on the necessity of provisional disposition or those of incomplete reasoning; and

(a) Disposition of the property devolving upon the State is an administrative disposition, and if the ownership of the property devolving upon the State is transferred before the State, it may be cancelled if there is a defect in the disposition of the non-performance;

B. If the disposition of the property devolving upon the State is revoked, even if the registration of the transfer of ownership was not cancelled, it shall be deemed that the registration of the invalidity of the cause was made, and thus the State may exercise its right as owner on the property devolving upon the State

C. If the right to be preserved can be recognized, the respondent has cultivated various crops without the source of authority so long as the respondent has occupied and cultivated the forest that is the object of the right to be preserved without the source of authority, and the respondent has judged that there is no need to make a provisional disposition despite the difficulty to conclude that there is no possibility of not exercising the right or significantly difficult to implement it due to the change in the present situation.

Article 187 of the Civil Act, Article 714(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea

Mad money

Red support in the first instance court, Daejeon District Court Decision 64Na222 delivered on February 4, 1965

The original judgment shall be reversed and the judgment

The case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

As to ground of appeal No. 1 of the Claimant:

In the reasoning explanation, the original judgment did not have any objection as to whether a contract for the non-property devolving upon the State was interpreted as an administrative act as the exercise of public authority of the so-called state, and determined that the original disposition may result in the collapse of all the rights transferred before the revocation of the previous disposition, and therefore, it cannot be interpreted as an administrative act that can be freely revoked by the administrative agency that rendered disposition.

However, although the lease or non-lease of the property devolving upon the State is an administrative disposition, the cancellation of the lease can be the object of administrative litigation, and even if the ownership is transferred before the transfer of the property devolving upon the State, it can be cancelled if there is any defect in the disposition of the property devolving upon the State, and even if the disposition of the property is null and void by a non-authorized agency, it has been interpreted as an act to cancel the disposition of the property devolving upon the State as an act to declare the invalidation even if the disposition of the property becomes null and void by abundance, and the above judgment of the original court has long been interpreted as an interpretation contrary to the previous system of the original court, and there is a reasonable ground for appeal as to this point.

The Second Ground of Appeal

In addition, in the interpretation of the current Civil Code, the original judgment also judged that the ownership of the land in this case was revoked as long as the title on the register of land in this case is located in the respondent, and therefore, it cannot be interpreted that the ownership of the land in this case is returned to the applicant, as a matter of course, because there was no cancellation of the original disposition, even though Article 187 of the Civil Code was the case, if the original disposition was cancelled, the ownership shall not be transferred from the beginning, and since the registration of ownership transfer is merely the registration of invalidity of cause, even if the original owner did not cancel the registration of invalidity of cause, it shall be interpreted that the original owner can exercise his right as the owner by deeming that there was no registration of ownership transfer, and the provisions of Article 187 of the above shall not be the basis for the opposite interpretation. Therefore, the appeal

As to the fourth ground for appeal

On the necessity of the preservation of the original case, the original judgment recognized that the respondent currently occupies and cultivates various crops, and judged that there is no evidence to acknowledge the realistic urgency and necessity to allow provisional disposition to the applicant.

However, if the right to preserve is recognized, it has been difficult to conclude that the respondent's right is not exercised due to the change of the current state or is likely to substantially impede the execution of the right by growing various farm products, so long as the applicant cultivates the forest land subject to the right to preserve without the source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of source of state of source of state of source of state of source of state of source of state

Therefore, without requiring any judgment on other arguments, the original judgment shall not be reversed, so it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)