Whether a person can be deemed to have a legitimate right of representation solely with a de facto residence

It can not be said that only a person who actually resided without the approval of the administrative agency is legally and decent.

Article 15 of the Act on Asset Disposal for Reversion

Plaintiff

Director General of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Government

The administrative disposition that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty 1 on September 15, 428 with respect to the short-term 13 square meters in respect of the trees of the above ground buildings of grade 3 to 25 square meters in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council No. 35, Jongno-gu, Seoul and the house for the apapex 13 square meters shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim for objection is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Upon entering into a sale contract with the Defendant on October 5, 4287, the Plaintiff’s legal representative sought a judgment that the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s land and housing. The real estate was owned by Nonparty 2, Japan at this time, and Nonparty 1 was in possession and use without concluding the contract with the government authorities since August 14, 4286, and the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the Plaintiff on October 5, 4287, and was sold at KRW 289,000 with the Plaintiff on October 5, 428, but the Defendant did not revoke the administrative disposition against the Plaintiff based on the judgment of the council on the petition for property belonging to the Plaintiff on September 15, 288, but submitted the lease contract with the Plaintiff on September 15, 2288 to Nonparty 1, which was the property owned by Nonparty 2, Japan, and it was proved that Nonparty 1 was in violation of the Plaintiff’s rights to the Plaintiff’s title 1 or 4, respectively.

The plaintiff's plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's main real estate is the property owned by the non-party 2 who is Japan, and the non-party 1 is the property devolving upon the plaintiff's head of the city, and the defendant's disposition was taken against the plaintiff's head of the city. But the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's claim.

The facts that the defendant entered into a lease contract on September 15, 428 with the non-party 1 are without dispute between the parties, and as a whole, the defendant shall lease the property belonging to the plaintiff on October 14, 4286 and sell the property at 289,000 dollars to the plaintiff on October 15, 428, and the plaintiff shall pay the rent at 10 years for the remaining 58,000 dollars at the time of the contract, and the plaintiff shall pay the remaining 231,000 dollars to the non-party 1. The plaintiff's right to purchase the property reserved to the defendant until the plaintiff paid the purchase price in full cannot be acknowledged as being lawful until October 4, 4297, and since the plaintiff's right to purchase the property was not infringed upon the plaintiff's right to purchase and sell the property, the plaintiff's right to purchase the property can not be acknowledged as being subject to the plaintiff's right to purchase and sell the property under the former Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Magsung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)