The public auction notification and the forfeiture of the preferential right by the related person;

The preferential purchase right held as a person with the annual interest on the property devolving upon the State shall not be lost because it did not comply with the public auction even though the notice of public auction was given, but shall only be lost if it failed to comply with the public auction.

Article 15 of the Reversion Property Disposal Act, Article 16 of the Reversion Property Disposal Act

Plaintiff

Director General of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Government

The administrative disposition that the defendant entered into a sales contract with the defendant joining the defendant as of May 3, 4287 with respect to 28 square meters and 7 sites No. 51-23 of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu as of May 3, 4287 is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's attorney sought a decision as the purport of the claim, and the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the administrative authority from the time of the military administration to the time of the 6.25 incident, and the above ground building was occupied and used until the time of the 6.25 incident. The plaintiff entered into a lease renewal contract with the defendant as of June 30, 4286, and continuously submitted a preferential purchase cost as of August 11, 428, and during the promotion of the 5.20th National Assembly members, the plaintiff was on the 5.20th National Assembly members of the 5.20th National Assembly members of the 5.20th National Assembly members of the 5.20th National Assembly members of the 3rd National Assembly, and the plaintiff was on the 9th National Assembly members of the 5.2nd National Assembly members of the 4th National Assembly members of the 4th National Assembly members of the 5.2nd National Assembly members of the 5th National Assembly members of the 9th National Assembly members of the 20th National Assembly.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff entered into a lease renewal contract with the defendant as of June 30, 4286 with respect to the site to which the plaintiff belongs as of the short-term 11st of August, 4286. The defendant issued an administrative disposition against the defendant's intervenor as of May 3, 4287. In other words, the plaintiff submitted a preferential purchase on August 11, 4286 for the purchase of the property in this case, and the defendant started the sale of the property in this case and completed the record investigation on December 30, 4287 for the sale of the property in this case, and the plaintiff did not participate in the bid and submitted the second bidding price to the plaintiff as of June 30, 4287, and the plaintiff did not respond to the second bidding price as of March 13, 4287, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal's appeal's bid price was rejected for 30 days or more.

The court below held that, on June 30, 4286 with respect to the site to which the plaintiff belongs, the lease renewal contract was concluded with the defendant and the defendant submitted the preferential purchase price on August 11 of the same year, and that the defendant did not take an administrative disposition to the defendant as of May 3, 4287 with respect to the property to the defendant as of August 3 of the same year, there is no dispute between the parties. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff lost the right to purchase the property to which the plaintiff belongs because he did not participate in the public auction even though he did not participate in the public auction bidding, although the plaintiff failed to comply with the public auction bidding, and that the right to purchase the property to which he belongs should be lost only if the plaintiff failed to comply with the public auction auction, and even if he received the notice of the public auction date, he did not lose the right to purchase the property to which the plaintiff had notified the plaintiff on the date of the public auction as of August 11 of the same year, and it violated the plaintiff's preferential purchase right by applying Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Act to the defendant.

Judges Seo Dog-Appellee (Presiding Judge)