Whether the property registered in the registry of state property or public property, which is not registered as owned by the State, falls under the concealed state property under Article 53 of the State Property Act.

Article 54 of the Enforcement Rule of the State Property Act excludes the property which is not known by the State among the provisions of Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, and is recorded in the register of state property or public property in the register of state property or public property. Thus, even if the property is not owned by the State on the register of state property or public property, it cannot be deemed as a concealed state property under Article 53 of the State

Article 53 of the State Property Act, Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 54 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (88Gahap44990) in the first instance trial

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

At the same time, the defendant receives gold KRW 139,201,80 from the plaintiff and simultaneously executes the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the forest land listed in the attached Table on August 12, 198 with respect to the plaintiff.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials (Reduction of the purport of the claim in the trial).

In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1-1 through 5 (Certified Copy of Register), No. 3 (No. 4), No. 4-1, 2 (Protocol of Pleadings), and 3 (Protocol of Pleadings) without dispute over the establishment, the forest land of this case listed in the attached Table is owned by E.S. E. 1-1 through No. 5 (No. 3), E. 3 (No. 5), which was Japan at the time of the piracy, and was reverted to the U.S. military administration under subparagraphs 2 and 33 of the Maritime Affairs and Security Act, and was reverted to the defendant, and the above E.S. 1 et al. was the name of E. al. of E. 2 and the above No. 3 was the name of E. 3, which was the name of E. 1988, the appellate court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of transfer of ownership from E. 27, 1984.

The plaintiff acquired the forest land of this case, which is a State property concealed as above in good faith, and returned it to the State voluntarily by recognizing the defendant's claim in the above lawsuit, and thereby becomes property subject to the special sale under Article 53-2 of the State Property Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, on May 13, 198, the head of Nam-gu Incheon National Government notified the plaintiff of the sale plan for the forest of this case on June 1, 198 and the plaintiff applied for purchase pursuant to Article 53-2 of the State Property Act and Article 2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the same year. On August 12 of the same year, the plaintiff notified the plaintiff that he accepted the above purchase request on August 12 of the same year, and the defendant applied for purchase of the forest of this case on the above date on the above date. The defendant applied for the sale contract for the sale price of the forest of this case to the plaintiff and the above sale price of the forest of this case.

Therefore, with respect to whether the forest land in this case is concealed state property under the State Property Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act or not, Article 53-2 of the State Property Act provides that if the concealed state property is acquired in good faith and then the property is sold to a person who voluntarily returns it to the State due to a settlement in court or any other cause as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the sale price shall be paid in installments for a period not exceeding 12 years without interest as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, or the sale price shall be deducted from the sale price of the state property at one time. Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12681 of Apr. 10, 1989) provides that "State property listed in the registry or other public record under the above Act shall be deemed to be state property under the name of the above person other than the State Property Act and the fact that the State is not aware of the fact at the time of sale, and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the property shall not be deemed to be owned by the State or public property under the above Act.

Next, in full view of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the establishment of the sale of the forest of this case, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the establishment of the sale of the forest of this case, Gap evidence Nos. 6 (Notification of Sale Plan), Gap evidence No. 8 (Notification of Sale Plan), Eul evidence No. 1-1, and Eul evidence No. 2 (Petitions), the Plaintiff expressed his intention to purchase the forest of this case several times since 1987 and notified the Defendant of his intention to purchase the forest of this intention on August 12 of the same year after he notified the Plaintiff of the sale plan of the forest of May 13, 198, and then notified the bid schedule by private contract after August 12 of the same year, 198. However, in this case without proof, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s request for purchase and the Defendant’s sale of the forest of this case did not constitute a sales contract (the above notification of the Defendant’s offering to sell the forest of this case was merely an inducement to sell the forest of this case).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case under the premise that the forest of this case is concealed as property subject to special sale under the State Property Act and the contract of sale under the above provision between the plaintiff and the defendant is established shall be dismissed as it is no longer reasonable. The judgment of the court below is justified as a conclusion with the party members and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff as the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Il-young (Presiding Judge)