(a) Where the assets of the Dormant Corporation to which it belongs are disposed of in violation of the provisions of Article 8 (1) 4 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership, the period for filing

(b) The effective date of the lawsuit, if the lawsuit was filed with a court having no jurisdiction over the administrative lawsuit and was transferred to the court having jurisdiction over the case;

(a) Where the property of a Dormant Corporation is disposed of in violation of Article 8(1)4 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, interested persons shall not be subject to restrictions on the period of filing the lawsuit;

B. If an administrative litigation is filed with a court without jurisdiction and records and transfers it to a court with jurisdiction, the time when the lawsuit takes effect is transferred to the court with jurisdiction.

Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Heaya Company

Daegu High Court Decision 63Gu62 delivered on February 25, 1964

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the proviso of Article 8 (4) of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property devolving upon the Plaintiff’s legal representative’s grounds for appeal, the original judgment is subject to dissolution and disposal in dividing the property devolving upon the corporation. Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property devolving upon the State shall be effective prior to the enforcement of the Act, and Article 1 (1) of the Act shall be construed as "any interested person who has an objection to the sale (except for sale by corporate dissolution) of all or part of the property of a dormant corporation devolving upon the State prior to the enforcement of this Act may bring an action within 2 months from the enforcement date of this Act." Paragraph (2) of the same Article shall be construed as "no lawsuit has been instituted even after the lapse of 2 months in the case of paragraph (1) or for which the period of filing an action has already expired, and it shall be construed as "the period of disposal of the property devolving upon the State pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property devolving upon the State, which the Plaintiff had already disposed of the property within 9 years."

However, in the event that a disposition is made in violation of Article 8 (1) 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction before the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction is enforced, such disposition shall be null and void automatically, and therefore, interested parties may file a lawsuit without being subject to the limitation on the period for filing a lawsuit. Since the same is the case at source, it cannot be deemed that the period for filing a lawsuit against the disposition already made prior to the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction has expired. However, the judgment in the original judgment is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for

However, ex officio, scambling

Since the plaintiff submitted this case to the Seoul Special District Court with no jurisdiction over the administrative litigation on the expiration date of two months from the date of the enforcement of the administrative litigation, the Seoul Special District Court cannot transfer the case to the Daegu High Court with jurisdiction, and even if it was transferred, the validity of the lawsuit shall be effective when the records were received by the Daegu High Court. Thus, according to the records, it is obvious that records were received by the Daegu High Court with respect to October 7, 1963 after two months as stipulated in Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property to Which Jurisdiction belongs, and therefore the conclusion of the original judgment that determined that the records were dealt with pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property to Which Jurisdiction belongs pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article is just, and that the appeal is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Round (Presiding Judge) Kim Gi-gim and Hongnam Table