Whether the cancellation can be asserted in case a person who was duly appointed as a manager of a legally reverted enterprise from the competent agency is dismissed in connection with the cancellation of an administrative disposition against the enterprise.

As a sales contract for a vested enterprise has been cancelled, a person who was appointed from the competent office of business to the administrator of the vested enterprise and was dismissed on the ground that the disposition of cancellation of the above sales contract was cancelled again, has no need to continue management, and there is a benefit to seek correction against the cancellation of the above disposition.

Plaintiff

Minister of Finance and Economy

Seoul High Court Decision 63Gu193 delivered on December 24, 1963

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

It is reasonable to interpret that a person who was legally appointed as a manager from the competent agency with respect to a vested enterprise has the right to lease, management, or sale of the vested property within the extent not exceeding the limit of the same law, unless there is any ground for disqualification under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State. According to the facts duly established by the court below in light of the purport of Article 15 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State and Article 29 of the same Act, a sales contract was concluded on June 1, 1957 between the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant, and on the ground that the defendant did not pay the purchase price in installments to the defendant, the above sales contract was revoked (hereinafter referred to as the "first cancellation disposition"), and the defendant was appointed as a manager of the above enterprise, who is the competent authority with respect to the property belonging to the State, and the defendant was removed from the office under the Act on the Disposal of Property belonging to the State with respect to the State as a legitimate removal of the plaintiff from office under the Act on the Disposal of Property belonging to the State.

Therefore, the court below did not examine whether the removal of a company to which the plaintiff belongs is a legitimate relative for the plaintiff without examining whether it is based on Article 35 of the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which the plaintiff belongs. However, although the court below focused on the fact that the plaintiff's administrative litigation filed against the plaintiff against the dismissal of the plaintiff became final and conclusive as the plaintiff's loss, the court below did not examine the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking correction of the administrative disposition on the ground that the plaintiff's current loss of the status of the administrator, and did not examine the main issue, and therefore, it erred in the misapprehension of law by understanding the nature of the so-called right of annual interest in the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which the plaintiff belongs, and therefore, the defendant's answer to this point is without merit.

As above, the judgment of the court below is reversed on the ground that the judgment of the court below is explained, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court