logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1972. 4. 11. 선고 71누153 판결
[매매계약해제처분무효확인][집20(1)행,057]
Main Issues

Even if the land belongs to another person's private building, a person who leases the building through legitimate procedures with the authority of the party concerned acquires the status of a good relative to the building by the lease.

Summary of Judgment

Even if the land belongs to another person's private building, a person who leases the building through legitimate procedures with the authority of the party concerned acquires the status of a good relative to the building by the lease.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 15 of the Act on Asset Disposal for Reversion

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Head of the Cleanness Tax Office

original decision

Seoul High Court Decision 70Gu398 delivered on August 31, 1971

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by Defendant ○○○○ is examined.

Even though a person who owns a building on a site which is a property devolving upon the State, if he had obtained a legitimate approval for use from the competent authority in a lawsuit for the use of the site or had occupied the site at will without entering into a lease contract under the legal procedure, he is merely an illegal occupant, and it cannot be deemed as a good relative as referred to in Article 15 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State. However, even though a building on another person's private interest belongs to the site where a building is constructed, the lessee according to the legal procedure with the authority in a lawsuit and the authority in a lawsuit have acquired a good relative's status as to the building site by the lease. As such, the original judgment was deemed to have been constructed at the time when the plaintiff leases the building site from the head of the Dong-gu office, and the fact that the building was constructed on the building site of the non-party 1 at the time of the lease of the building site from the head of Dong-gu office, the above non-party 2 did not have the right to do so under Article 10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu

arrow