The meaning of the same family under Article 12 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongings;

It is reasonable to interpret that the same family under Article 12 of the Act refers to the same family under the same title at the time of purchasing a house or site which is the property devolving upon ownership.

Article 12 of the Act on Property Disposal for Reversion

Plaintiff

Director General of the Government of Jeollabuk-do

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the defendant's administrative disposition on April 13, 4288 that the contract for the sale of real estate entered in the separate sheet signed on February 27, 4287 between the plaintiff and the defendant was revoked. The plaintiff's claim shall bear the costs of lawsuit. The plaintiff purchased the property entered in the separate sheet at 33,000 in the sale contract between the defendant on February 27, 4287 and paid the proceeds of the sale on April 19, 4288 by April 13, 428. The defendant purchased the property belonging to the separate sheet at 30,000 in the separate sheet at 30,000,000 in the separate sheet from the plaintiff and the defendant's family members at 30,000,000 won in the separate sheet from the defendant's property belonging to the same family members at 30,000,000 won in the previous 7,000,000 won in the previous 3,000,0,000

As evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 4-1, 2, and 5-9 were submitted, and the witness Nos. 1 through 3 and 5 were examined respectively, and the evidence Nos. 4 were recognized only for the establishment of the non-party 2. The defendant's attorney sought a judgment on the order of the head of the plaintiff and entered into a sales contract with the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's head of the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's certificate No. 3 and the non-party 5's certificate No. 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 7's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's new evidence No.

Between the plaintiff and the defendant, on February 27, 4287, entered into a sales contract on the real estate in the separate sheet as of February 13, 428; the defendant cancelled the sales contract on the ground that the sales contract conflicts with Article 12 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the short term on April 13, 428; the plaintiff filed a petition for the cancellation of an administrative disposition on the property belonging to the defendant on May 3, 428; however, there is no adjudication on the difference until the money has passed two months thereafter; the fact that the non-party 1 owned the property belonging to the defendant and the defendant, and that the property was located in an area within 20,000 centering on the real estate is no dispute between the parties. The plaintiff's assertion that the non-party-party-party-party-appellant's family members, who purchased the land belonging to the plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the contract, could not be seen as the same non-party-party-party-party-party-appellant's share and the same family members's title 2.

If so, it is reasonable that the defendant's main administrative disposition is a legitimate administrative disposition on the ground that the main contract which was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant was in conflict with the provisions of the same Act, and the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed as it does not have any reason to judge the objection, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation

Judges Oh-scopon (Presiding Judge)