1. Effect of the extinction of right of representation on possessory right;

2. The meaning of the same family as prescribed in Article 10 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongings; and

1. Even after the resignation of the job placement office of a Si has been owned as an agent, so long as he continues to possess and manage the real estate without expressing his intention to possess it for himself after the resignation of the job placement office, the agent title relationship is not extinguished even if the power of representation has been extinguished due to his resignation.

2. The same family as provided in Article 10 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging refers to the family in the dynamics.

Article 194 of the former Civil Act, Article 9(5) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 10 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Government of the Republic of Korea in Jeollabuk-do

Gwangju City

The plaintiff et al.'s claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The plaintiff's agent, etc. purchased the real estate listed in the 1st attached Table 2 between the plaintiff's non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's land.

Although it was divided on September 5, 4286 on the family register, in fact, it is judged that it does not correspond to Article 10 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Chuncheon since it was divided into Chuncheon in 4283, and that it is argued that the building site is not related to the original city job placement office, and it will not interfere with the operation of the city job placement office, not the next building site.

Nevertheless, since the appeal was dismissed on January 21, 4286, when the appeal was filed to the Appellate Committee on the grounds that it was unjust that the State made a sales contract to be lawfully concluded by the State, Jeonnam-do, and the appeal was made on January 21, 4286, it was stated that the appeal was dismissed, and it was based on evidence, and submitted evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and submitted evidence No. 1 to No. 3, and the purpose of proof is denied.

The defendant representative and the participating representative shall seek a decision on the order sheet and use the other parts except the possession of the plaintiff et al. for the job placement office in Gwangju City after the 8/15th anniversary of the plaintiff et al.'s assertion. In using the plaintiff et al. as the job placement office in Gwangju City, the plaintiff 1 naturally constitutes the "U.S.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.

Both agents and intervenors asserted that the building was the main building built by the U.S. military in Gwangju-si after the 8.15 Sea, and that the U.S. military placement office was used as a warehouse on the main building adjacent to the Dong-gun's establishment during the occupation of Gwangju-si, and that the main building, which is a military property, would become the government property of the Republic of Korea under the Korea-U.S. Agreement after the eviction, and that only one small warehouse constructed on the building site was not included in the lease contract and the sub-contract.

ex officio, the answer to the fact-finding by the plaintiff et al. is accepted from the Gwangju City Mayor.

Since the plaintiff's 2-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 1-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 2-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 4-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 5-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 2-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 4-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 5-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 1-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 2-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 5-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 4-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 5-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 5-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 1-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 2-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 5-year agent, the plaintiff's 1-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 5-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 2-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 1-year agent's 5-year agent contract for the plaintiff's 4-year agent contract for the plaintiff's agent contract for the plaintiff's 1.

Accordingly, the plaintiff et al.'s main claim shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be decided in accordance with Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Ohman Line (Presiding Judge)