Lease of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction and Foreigner

Article 31 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Property Treatment Act, which is prohibited from leasing property devolving upon the State to a foreigner, is merely a provision that a good person shall continue to lease the property, even if the government takes a separate measure, that is, if it is necessary to sell or lease the property to a foreigner temporarily until the foreigner cancels the lease contract due to the need for sale or lease.

Article 24 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

United States of America Attorney Yang Sung-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Director of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 55Do183 delivered on October 31, 1956

The final appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff-appellant are legal principles that the property belonging to the Republic of Korea should be leased to the citizens or corporations of the Republic of Korea. However, in the case of the enactment of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the disposal of property belonging to the State after the establishment of the Government of Korea, the plaintiff-appellant has leased the property belonging to the State to the Chinese government as a member of the Union, and it has been continuously leased the property belonging to the State only to the foreigners prior to the enforcement of this Decree until there is a separate measure in accordance with Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property belonging to the State. In this case, the plaintiff-appellant's ground of appeal by the court below that the plaintiff-appellant's right to lease the property belonging to the State to the Republic of Korea would be unlawful since it concluded a lease agreement with the government of China or the government of the Republic of Korea, and that the plaintiff's right to lease the property belongs to the government of the Republic of Korea to the government of the Republic of Korea to the government of the Republic of Korea, and that the plaintiff's right to lease to the property to the non-party.

It is reasonable to interpret that Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Lao Property Disposal Act that property devolving upon Ansan cannot be leased to a foreigner is exceptionally leased to a foreigner prior to the enforcement of the Dong-dong Ordinance, even if a foreigner temporarily rents the property due to the need for separate sale or lease from the government until the termination of the lease contract for a foreigner, it shall be interpreted that it is just a good person, even if the foreigner temporarily rents the property due to the need for a separate sale or lease from the government. Accordingly, it is reasonable to interpret that the Defendant’s lease on the site of the Plaintiff, who is a foreigner, canceled the lease contract for the land to the non-party, and changed the title to the non-party, but the disposition was justified after the change to the name of the representative of the Dae-gu Special Corporation for the Forestry and Industry, the original judgment is reasonable and reasonable, and it is clear that it would be an independent opinion of the misunderstanding of the law of Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree. The appeal shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 14 of the Civil Procedure Act Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the litigation Costs.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)