A case seeking administrative disposition and not subject to administrative litigation;

(a) If the property devolving upon the co-owner sells part of the property to a third party before the non-payment is made, then the other co-payment is made for the cancellation of the contract for the sale of the property devolving upon the property to the third party, the claim for the payment of administrative disposition and thus cannot be subject to administrative litigation.

B. As long as the disposition of sale of the property devolving upon the State has been duly taken place, even if the joint purchaser committed an act in violation of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State by selling part of the sale price and payment to others, for such reason, the competent authorities may cancel the part of the sale disposition to the purchaser who committed the above violation on their own, but seek the cancellation of the sale disposition which was lawfully made by another joint purchaser against the purchaser who committed the above violation on their own cannot be subject to administrative litigation, and it cannot be subject to administrative litigation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 66Gu77 delivered on July 28, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

Since the original judgment dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that the plaintiff's main claim cannot be subject to administrative litigation, it cannot be said that there was an error of law since the original judgment did not judge whether the plaintiff's main claim satisfies the requirements of the original judgment or not.

The second point is examined in the same reason.

The plaintiff sought a decision that the name of the non-party 3 is revoked from among the sales contracts concluded between the plaintiff, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3 on December 13, 1961 on the real estate which is the property devolving upon the plaintiff as the purport of the claim. According to the plaintiff's claim, the non-party 3 sells the 13,078 square meters among the 13,078 square meters to the non-party 4 on November 7, 1966, before the non-party 3 completely pays the non-party 1 to the non-party 4. Thus, the part concerning the non-party 3 in the sales contract should be revoked, and the non-party 3 in violation of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the non-party 3 on December 13, 1961 is not erroneous, and even after the above sales contract was in violation of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the non-party 3, the plaintiff's original decision was justified, and its claim for revocation of the administrative disposition.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu