Whether the agency may cancel the property devolving upon the purchaser after the transfer registration;

In the purchase contract under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, even after the ownership of the subject matter of sale has been transferred to the purchaser, and the disposition of revocation on the grounds of such revocation is not beyond the scope of discretionary authority, the administrative agency may revoke it.

Article 35 of the Act on Asset Disposal for Reversion

Supreme Court Decision 66Nu145 Decided January 17, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 15Nu18, Supreme Court Decision 15Nu18, Supreme Court Decision 22(13)137, Supreme Court Decision 22Nu137)

Plaintiff

Minister of Finance and Economy

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative sought a ruling that the Defendant’s revocation of the sales contract on the 19,800 shares owned by Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. on November 17, 1956 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the re-government Nos. 4,103 on October 21, 1961.

(1) Of the facts alleged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff entered into a contract from the defendant on November 17, 1956 to purchase 19,800 shares of 25,00 shares owned by the non-party 1 corporation to purchase 59,400,000 shares owned by the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter the same shall apply) and paid in full the price until March 23, 1961, and completed the opening of the above shares held by the defendant as of the date, and the fact that the above sales contract was revoked as of October 21, 1961 by the defendant as of October 21, 1961 is not a dispute between both parties.

(2) The plaintiff asserts that in the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant in this case, as mentioned above, since the ownership of the shares is entirely transferred to the plaintiff due to the full payment of the plaintiff's purchase price and the completion of the transfer procedure of ownership transfer, even if there were grounds for cancellation under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the previous date, the right of cancellation can not be revoked. However, the defendant's cancellation after the transfer of ownership was erroneous, and even after the transfer of ownership, even if the defendant's cancellation right is not lost even after the transfer of ownership, the above cancellation disposition of the sales contract in this case is illegal.

However, in the sales contract under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, even after the ownership of the subject matter of sale has been transferred to the purchaser, the administrative agency may cancel the contract unless the cancellation on the ground of the cancellation does not deviate from the scope of discretionary authority. Therefore, in this case, it should be examined as to whether the exercise of discretionary authority as to the exercise of the right to cancel the cause of cancellation exceeds the scope of discretionary authority.

(3) No. 31 and No. 32 (case of non-party 1's application for a free contract) are presumed to be established by the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 30's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 30's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 30's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's.

(4) However, according to Article 22(2) and (3) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongings, until the purchaser of property devolvings fully acquire the ownership of such property, he/she shall perform his/her obligations as stipulated in Chapter IV of the Act and may cancel the sales contract when he/she violates such obligations. Article 34 Subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that the lessee or manager of the property devolvings shall preserve the property under the order of the Government, and shall not transfer, sublease or dispose of the property without the approval of the Government. Article 35 Subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that if the lessee or manager violates the obligations of the lessee or manager under this Act, the lessee or manager shall cancel the lease or management contract and order the return of the property devolvings. The purpose of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongings is to prohibit the purchaser from disposing of the property without the approval of the Government, and if the purchaser violates the provisions of this prohibition, it shall be prohibited from disposing of the property devolvings upon the request for the purchase of the property devolvings even before the purchase of the property devolvings.

(5) The plaintiff's attorney asserts that even if the above transfer of rights to the non-party 10 foundation was acknowledged as above, this transfer was subject to the approval of the competent authorities, or that it did not directly intend to obtain the shares belonging to the foundation without the approval of the competent authorities, and that the transfer of rights was not in violation of the law on disposal of property belonging to the plaintiff. Even if the transfer of rights was in violation of the above order, the defendant refused to approve the transfer of rights, and concluded the contract with the plaintiff on the ground that it was impossible to cancel the contract with the plaintiff on the ground that the transfer of rights between the plaintiff and the above foundation was subject to the approval of the competent authorities, and that the transfer of rights between the plaintiff and the above foundation was not subject to the approval of the competent authorities, and that the transfer of rights to the expectation of the purchase of shares belonging to the government without the approval of the competent authorities in this case cannot be viewed as a transfer of rights under the Act on Disposal of Property belonging to the plaintiff and the parties to the contract cannot be viewed as a transfer of rights under the law.

(6) Article 9 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State provides for those who are not entitled to become the purchaser of the property devolving to the State, and includes those who have illegally disposed of the property devolving to the State pursuant to subparagraph 5, and those who have been subject to cancellation or cancellation of the contract by falling under Article 21, 22 (c) or 36 of the same Act concerning the purchase, lease, and management of the property devolving to the State pursuant to subparagraph 6. Article 7 (3) of the same Act provides that if the above disqualified matters are not discovered within three years from the date of the conclusion of the contract on the purchase of the pertinent property, they shall not assert the grounds for disqualification if they are not found within three years from the date of the contract, even if they are disqualified for the purchase of the property devolving to the State, and there is a new order established upon the expiration of three or more years from the date of the contract, so that the new legal order was destroyed by the cancellation of the contract, and thus, it should be applied to the case where the above new order is removed.

However, the reason for cancellation under Article 22(3) of the above Act does not include any restriction under Article 7(3) of the Enforcement Decree, which is followed by Article 9 of the same Act, and all the reason for disqualification under Article 9 of the same Act refer to the relation where there was an unlawful act under the Act on the Disposal of Property devolvingd on Property prior to the purchase of the pertinent reverted property, and Article 22(3) of the same Act refers to the case where a person committed an illegal act after the conclusion of a trade contract (including the case where the price to be purchased was determined as the same in this case and the contract deposit payment procedure is completed even after the contract is concluded) and its requirements are different. Thus, in the case of Article 22(3) of the above Act, it shall not be applied by analogy

(7) As such, there is no reason to revoke the sales contract of this case from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence that the administrative disposition of the Defendant, who revoked the sales contract with the Plaintiff on the grounds of the grounds of the grounds of the grounds of revocation, exceeded the scope of its discretion, or deemed remarkably unreasonable.

(8) If so, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the above administrative disposition is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Do-ju (Presiding Judge)