Whether Article 53-2 of the former State Property Act provides that the right to purchase the property shall be granted to a voluntary return of the concealed State property

Article 53-2 of the former State Property Act (Act No. 3482, Dec. 31, 1981) provides that the person who voluntarily returns the concealed property shall be deemed to have granted the right to purchase the property to the person who voluntarily returned the concealed State property, in a case where the property is sold to the person who voluntarily returned the concealed State property, by failing to file an appeal against the judgment of the first instance which cited the claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the State in question, until the time limit for appeal expires. However, Article 53-2 provides that the person who voluntarily returned the concealed State property shall not be deemed to have granted the right to purchase the property in question.

Article 53-2 of the former State Property Act (Law No. 3482, Dec. 31, 1981)

§ 50,000

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (89 Gohap5973) in the first instance trial

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

As regards the Plaintiff’s sale of forest 57 forest 9,818 square meters in Nam-dong, Nam-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “the instant forest”), it is confirmed that the Defendant is a purchaser to purchase the forest 57 forest mar (hereinafter “the instant forest”).

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the defendants in the first and second trials.

In full view of the testimony and arguments of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 4, and 7 (Final Certification Board) without dispute over each establishment, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff (the trade name before modification, the Kung Industrial Co., Ltd.) on Sep. 5, 1984 against the plaintiff on Sep. 5, 1984 for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff on the ground that the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the future of the plaintiff on Nov. 15, 1985, and the judgment ordering the execution of the cancellation registration procedure becomes final and conclusive on the ground that the ownership transfer registration becomes null and void in the future of the plaintiff on Nov. 15, 1985, the registration under the name of the plaintiff on Feb. 15, 1988 was cancelled, and the ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of the defendant on Feb. 15, 198.

Accordingly, as acknowledged above, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff voluntarily returned the instant forest to the Defendant because it did not recognize the Defendant’s ownership as to the instant forest and did not file an appeal, and therefore, the Plaintiff is in the position of purchaser to purchase the instant forest as a person subject to special cases of sale concerning the voluntary return of concealed property as stipulated in Article 53-2 of the State Property Act, notwithstanding the status of purchaser. However, the Defendant refused to purchase the instant forest on July 24, 1989 against the Plaintiff who filed an application for purchase of the instant forest, and thus, the Defendant sought confirmation that he

In this case, it is reasonable to view that the date of return of state property is the date when the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, since there is no cooperation from the person who received the return of state property by registering the state property in the name of the State in accordance with the final and conclusive judgment. Therefore, in this case, the current state property revised as of December 31, 1986 as Act No. 3881 of Dec. 31, 1986 shall be effective as of January 1, 1987) at the time of the above return (amended as of January 31, 1987, Act No. 3482 of Dec. 31, 1981), since Article 53-2 of the State Property Act (amended as of December 31, 1981, Act No. 3482 of Dec. 31, 1981), if the pertinent state property is acquired in good faith and then the pertinent property is sold to the person who returned the pertinent state property without interest, and therefore, the above provision shall be included in the above case as a voluntary return of state property.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the original judgment is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jinsung (Presiding Judge)