Starting of Computing the period for filing a petition;

Article 9 of the Regulations of the Deliberation Committee on Petitions on Property Belonging to the State shall be deemed that the 30-day period for filing a petition may not proceed unless he/she is notified of an administrative disposition even if he/she knew of the fact of an administrative disposition.

Article 39 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 1 and Article 9 of the Regulations of the Deliberative Council on Petitions on Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Lee Jae-do Attorney Kim Han-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Director of the Gyeongnam-do Office of Second Instance, Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Outing (one second class)

Daegu High Court of the first instance

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff Kim Young-young's ground of appeal pointing out that the defendant rejected the plaintiff's request for change of tenant's name and revoked the lease contract for the non-party 1 to the non-party 200, and the lease of the building to the non-party 200 was obvious by the plaintiff 200, 6 December 4283 and the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the above administrative disposition was taken against the non-party 1 to the defendant 284. Thus, according to the plaintiff 3 evidence that there is no dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff 1 to the plaintiff 284, the plaintiff 1 to the non-party 200, the plaintiff 1 to the non-party 1 to the defendant 1 to the non-party 200, the plaintiff 1 to the non-party 1 to the defendant 1 to the non-party 1 to the defendant 1 to the defendant 1 to the defendant 1 to the non-party 1 to the defendant 1 to the defendant 284.

The court below held that even if Article 9 of the Regulations for the Deliberation on Property Belonging to the State did not receive the notification of administrative disposition, even if Article 9 of the Regulations for the Deliberation on Property Belonging to the State did not take place within 30 days from the date on which he knew of the fact, it cannot take place unless he was notified of the disposition, and the court below erred in the interpretation of the Act, and there is no dispute between the parties, and that the defendant leased to the intervenors at the same time when the lease contract for the warehouse belonging to the State with the yellow Sewage to the State on December 6, 4283 was revoked, and the court below rejected the plaintiff's appeal against the friendly administrative disposition on March 28, 4284, since Article 9 of the Regulations for the Deliberation on Property Belonging to the State was 30 months after the date on which the administrative disposition was taken place, and the plaintiff submitted the defendant's appeal on April 24, 4286 to the court below on March 16, 4287, which rejected the plaintiff's appeal for the decision of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Litigation Act.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)