Preferential Purchase Right and its Eligible Persons

A person who has considered a preferential purchase right in the sale of property devolving upon the State shall not recognize a preferential purchase right only on the sole basis of the acquisition from the government office and a person who legally enters into a lease contract for the object of the sale of property devolving upon the State, on the other hand, or of de facto possession from the former lessee.

Article 15(1) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction; Article 10(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Maximum Judgment (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 201Na14488 delivered on August 1, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 54Do26 delivered on July 31, 1954

The part concerning the petition deliberation council on property devolving upon the original judgment shall be reversed.

The proceedings of the Appeal Council on Property Reversion shall be dismissed.

The appeal on the prohibition of public auction on the site of this case shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

[Judgment of the court below]

Point 1 is on the ground that the original judgment is based, and the chairperson of the Council on Petitions on Property Belonging to the defendant is dismissed as the plaintiff's petition No. 112 on the site of the case as the plaintiff's petition

The court held that the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the existence of only the annual right is not justified because the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the existence of only the annual right is merely an infringement on the plaintiff's right, although there is no dispute between the parties and the non-party's claim that the non-party's claim to cancel the lease disposition on the non-party's identity and the non-party's claim that the non-party's right is infringed on the plaintiff's good annual right, but the non-party's right is infringed on by the non-party's general public sale of the property devolving upon the non-party's preferential right.

However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's petition No. 1 for the first time after the second time after the conclusion of the court below's ruling that the plaintiff's petition No. 2 was non-party 12, and the plaintiff's petition No. 12 was non-party 2's non-party 8's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 8's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1'

Article 15 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to the lease of property devolving upon the plaintiff (Article 29 of the same Act). The defendants also have the right to demand the lease contract from the former lessee to possess the property practically. If the original court recognizes the fact that the plaintiff occupies the property in reality, and if it is so, the plaintiff does not have the right to lease the property. It is clear that the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed by disregarding the rights and the result of rejection of the plaintiff's request for the lease contract is an unlawful disposition that the court below did not have the right to demand the sale of the leased property, which is the only important part of the plaintiff's claim and the right to demand the sale of the leased property, and the second judgment is not applied mutatis mutandis to the sale of the leased property which belongs to the owner or the manager of the leased property, and it is not applied mutatis mutandis to the sale of the leased property which belongs to the owner or the manager of the leased property as stipulated in Article 15 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In other words, the plaintiff argues that it is illegal to recognize the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of "the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease. It is not only a violation of the right, but also a violation of the right, although recognizing the plaintiff's right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease, it cannot be recognized as a relative because there is no legitimate lease with the government authority. It is not clear that the lease on the property on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the general public, and even if the existence of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the basis of the right of lease on the other party.

The judgment of the court below of first instance is not only a person who has been openly occupied since the beginning of possession of the building site as a bona fide negligence (the ground of appeal No. 1) but also a person who has continuously endeavored to enter into a rental agreement with the government authorities in charge of the management of the period of time repair, etc. (referring to evidence No. 6. 4) and is the so-called so-called "good-called" under Article 15 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to be applied mutatis mutandis in particular to the lease under Article 29 of the same Act, and the fact that the plaintiff is a good relative is more so-called and more so-called the time when the same Article is applied mutatis mutandis to the lease under Article 29 of the same Act and the fact that the plaintiff is a good relative is sufficient to recognize a difference by testimony of the evidence No. 1 and the witness Lee Chang-joon. However, the court below did not err in the judgment of the court below, and it cannot be reversed as it did not deviate from this evidence.

The decision of the court below was clearly stated that the plaintiff's action against the Director of the Council on Petitions on Property Belonging to the defendant, as long as it was described in the former part that the plaintiff cannot bring an action against the decision of the Chairperson of the Council on Petitions on Property Belonging to the defendant in Seoul Special Metropolitan City. However, the proviso of Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the defendant is clearly stated that the property in dispute over litigation is not included in the sale property under Article 12 of the same Decree. The proviso of the same Article is clearly stated that the property in dispute over the lawsuit is still pending in the lawsuit, and the sale of the property in dispute to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the defendant. It is clear that the plaintiff's action of sale in the defendant's country violates the proviso of Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the defendant to the defendant to the non-party to the non-party to the Republic of Korea.

First of all, the judgment of the Appeal Council on the legitimacy of a lawsuit filed against the defendant is nothing more than ordering the petitioner to correct or change the disposition taken against the administrative agency concerned, and the administrative agency's disposal unfavorable to the petitioner is no longer infringed upon the rights and interests of the petitioner. Thus, the appeal Council's decision alone cannot be a disposition agency under its function. Thus, the appeal council's decision cannot be a disposition agency under its function. Since it is obvious that the lawsuit filed against the defendant is illegal, the original judgment is reversed, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the original judgment on the part above, and it is necessary to dismiss the lawsuit against the defendant, and it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's claim under Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Act since the original judgment on the part above is no more than 9 of the Civil Procedure Act's rejection of the plaintiff's claim under Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Act since the court below's rejection of the first instance judgment on the ground that the defendant's claim under Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is no more than 10 of the Civil Procedure Act's rejection of the plaintiff's claim under Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)