Revocation of disposition for the sale of property devolving upon the State and its validity

Even if the payment of the purchase price of the property devolving upon the State and the judicial secretary entrusted with the registration thereof embezzled the payment of the remaining amount, forged the relevant documents and seals, and registered it, the contract is to be rescinded immediately and naturally, since the payment is not actually made until March 31, 1965. Therefore, it is impossible to make a different conclusion by making a deposit for the payment of the remaining amount.

Article 22 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 35 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Park Wil-hun

Call-out

Seoul High Court Decision 58 civilian 952 delivered on December 10, 1958, Seoul High Court Decision 2005Da1552 delivered on December 10, 2008

The sale or cancellation of the property devolving upon the State is a kind of administrative disposition. Since such cancellation is legitimate, even if the ownership transfer registration for the property devolving upon the State is revoked due to the sale or disposal of the property devolving upon the State retroactively, such registration shall be deemed null and void if it lacks the cause. This case is examined by the court below, and after the plaintiff purchased the building, which is the property devolving upon the State; paid the price in full; paid the price; and paid the ownership transfer registration for the building; and the ownership transfer registration for the building, which became possible on May 14, 1958, at the Council for Appeal of Property to the State, it was impossible to revoke the sale or disposal of the building, which became void on September 23, 199, by the court below's determination that the ownership transfer registration for the part of the building belonging to the State, was revoked, and it is clear that the administrative disposition was sold to the defendant on September 23, 200, and the court below rejected the part of the building, which became void by the court below's determination on the ground of appeal.

Justices Kim Du-il (Presiding Justice) Mabun (Presiding Justice)