Execution of a lease contract by public announcement of renewal of the lease contract and adjudication of lawsuit

The notification of the Administrator of the Office of Government Administration's notification of the renewal of a lease agreement is an administrative measure conducted to maintain the fixed state of the government administration due to an incident, so long as a renewal contract is concluded by the ruling of the court below during the same period without a renewal contract under the public notification, there is no obligation to transfer the renewed scrap, and it cannot be said that it violates the direction.

Article 35 of the Act on Asset Disposal for Reversion

Plaintiff

The Director General of the Government of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 54Do203 delivered on May 16, 1955

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, if the plaintiff's non-party 1 was found to be the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's.

Pursuant to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the plaintiff acquired the property without compensation from the non-party 3 in the short-term period of October 4280, it is reasonable to conclude a lease contract with the non-party 1 who was living together with the plaintiff during the short-term period of 4280, to conclude a lease contract with the non-party 1, and to conclude a new contract with the non-party 3 for the same reasons as the non-party 1's order to renew the lease contract for the long-term period of 3 years after the payment of rent in the name of the non-party 3, but it is reasonable to conclude a new contract with the non-party 1's order to renew the lease contract for the long-term period of 1 year by the non-party 6's order to renew the lease contract for the non-party 1's original reasons and the non-party 3's order to renew the lease contract for the non-party 1's original reasons. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff's non-party 1's order to renew the lease contract for 2 years.

The second point is that the defendant asserts at the original city that he had obtained a temporary occupancy permit from the defendant, on the basis of his right of interest to the Dong, but it can be recognized that the occupancy permit was conducted on the premise that the non-party 3 was a very poor person of thought and injury without dispute between the parties. In other words, the non-party 3 did not prove that the occupancy permit was illegal, so it cannot be recognized as a good association based on an unlawful disposition, and even if the defendant head and the Dong head are the persons of distinguished service to the non-resident, the plaintiff cannot be given priority to the plaintiff by taking over the building and moving the building, that is, the defendant's argument that it is inconsistent with the recognition that the previous tenant was missing at the time, and that it is not possible for the plaintiff to take over the building without any dispute, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to take over the building under the former part of the Housing Act even if the building was transferred to the present state, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a person who acquired the building under the former part of the Housing Act.

According to the court below's decision, it can be inferred that the plaintiff obtained the right of annual complaint on the property in this case from Non-party 3 in October of 4280 during the short-term period of 4280, and it is the fact legally confirmed by evidence that the plaintiff is the right holder. Thus, the theory of lawsuit based on the premise that the plaintiff is not a right holder is correct, as well as the theory of lawsuit based on the premise that the plaintiff is not a right holder, and as long as the plaintiff is a right holder of annual complaint, it is clear that the occupancy which the plaintiff has already been granted to the right holder cannot be a relative

In accordance with Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act Article 401 of the Civil Procedure Act, the final appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the cost of lawsuit.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)