The act of reducing or changing the area of the land to be sold by the State after selling the reverted property is an independent administrative disposition.

The act of reducing or changing the area of the land to be sold by the State after selling the reverted property is an independent administrative disposition.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 5 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Belonging Property

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Republic of Korea and one other (Attorney Choi In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1612 delivered on March 7, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 5 by the Plaintiff’s agent are as follows:

According to the facts established by the court below, it can be known that the country of defendant's country sold 45.6/124 of the land of 124 square meters in Jung-gu, Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) before replotting on May 21, 1954 to the plaintiff, and then changed to 30.92/124 square meters out of these shares after deducting 14.68/124 square meters. This change is an independent administrative disposition different from the previous sale disposition. Therefore, even if it is governed by the relevant laws such as Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Which Land was pointed out, the above change cannot be viewed as a private trade. Thus, the court below's decision consistent with this purport is just, and the court below's decision that the above change of the land price to the plaintiff's land price was not legally binding after the change of the land price of the plaintiff's land price to the above plaintiff's 2's land price after the change of the land price.

In addition, it is the theory of lawsuit that the registration of shares of 59/124 out of the above ( Address 2 omitted) No. 41.3 of the site was transferred to Nonparty 1. However, according to the original judgment and the records, the original judgment and the records, which was originally purchased in installments by specifying part of the above 124 square meters before the land substitution, by the non-party 2, the former owner of the above non-party 1, and the plaintiff and the defendant 23, and later, the land was replaced by the land No. 45.6 square meters and ( Address 2 omitted) No. 41.3 of the above ( Address 3 omitted) site and the land No. 41.3 but has not yet been divided, it can be known that the registration was made in the specific part purchased by the above non-party 1, and therefore, it cannot be said that the notification of change to

Since the original judgment does not contain any error like the theory of lawsuit in the original judgment, all arguments can not be employed.

2. health care unit;

Defendant 2’s purchase of the building site was 23.9 square meters above ( Address 3 omitted), but the registration of transfer was made as follows: (a) the above ( Address 3 omitted); (b) 45.6 square meters and ( Address 2 omitted); and (b) 86.9 square meters of 41.3 square meters; (b) 34.08/124 square meters of 41.3 square meters; (c) However, according to the facts duly admitted by the lower court, as stated in the former part, the first purchased building site was part of 124 square meters of 124 square meters before replotting; (a) 45.6 square meters of 41.3 square meters of 41.3 square meters of the building site; and (b) 41.3 square meters of 45.3 square meters of 41.3 square meters of the above building site purchased; and (a) 23.99 square meters of 24.21 square meters of the above building site and 44.7.25 square meters of the above land site area.27.1 square meters of .27.1.1.27 square meters of .24.

4 points of the Dong 4

Upon examining the evidence stated by the court below, it can be known that the agreement on division of the jointly owned property recognized by the court below was reached, and the chief of the tax office can be inferred that the above non-party 1 and the defendant 2 transferred their share registration in accordance with the contents of this agreement. Thus, it cannot be said that this is invalid.

In addition, according to the appraisal result of the court below like the theory of lawsuit, even if the lot number of the above ( Address 2 omitted) site and ( Address 5 omitted) site was changed due to the opposition of the above agreement, the above ( Address 3 omitted) site was divided only into 456 square meters and ( Address 2 omitted) site 41.3 square meters on the register, and there is no further division, and the court below also held that the registration of transfer of shares should be made for all of the above site to the plaintiff, the defendant, and the above non-party 13, as long as the above ( Address 3 omitted) site 23.9 square meters is confirmed to be owned by the above defendant, the plaintiff as the plaintiff did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, even if the lot number was changed in relation to the defendant.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Gyeong-ri, Kim & Kim