(a)in the case of dissolution of a corporation falling under Article 2(3) of the Jurisdictional Property Act, the scope of application of the provisions on liquidation of the Commercial Act;

(b) Where a domestic corporation under Article 2 (3) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongings is dissolved pursuant to the proviso to Article 8 (1) 4 of the same Act, the issue of reversion of ownership of the property;

It cannot be said that only shares or equity shares were dissolved by a domestic corporation, and its ownership property naturally belongs to the State.

Article 12(3) and the proviso to Article 18(1)4 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction; Articles 16 through 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction; Articles 245 and 542 of the Commercial Act; Article 2(3) and the proviso to Article 8(1)4 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction; Articles 16 through 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Korea

Han Jae-chul, an incorporated foundation

Freeboard machines

Seoul District Court Decision 62Na545 delivered on February 5, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, while the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff's assistant intervenor and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff's assistant intervenor

The grounds of appeal by each attorney of the plaintiff and the supplementary intervenor are examined.

In the case of dissolution of a juristic person falling under the provisions of Article 2 (3) of the Commercial Act due to the proviso of Article 8 (1) 4 of the Act on the Disposal of Property for Reversion, the application of the provisions of dissolution of the Commercial Act shall not be naturally excluded: Provided, That the provisions of liquidation of the Commercial Act shall apply to the extent that it does not violate the provisions on liquidation under Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the juristic person dissolved shall be deemed to exist within the scope of the purpose of liquidation under Article 245 and Article 542 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the property belonging to the juristic person shall continue to belong to the juristic person after dissolution, and it shall be deemed that the property belonging to the juristic person may be sold after dissolution under the proviso of Article 8 (1) 4 of the Act on the Disposal of Property for Reversion, and it shall be decided that the property belonging to the domestic juristic person shall be reverted to the State under the premise that the property belonging to the juristic person shall belong to the State under Article 8 (3) 4 of the same Act on the premise that the original judgment shall not be dismissed.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Judge Lee Young-chul(Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court