1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

On March 5, 1984, 1984, the title holder of the registration date: C, a public official who was in charge of the affairs concerning the sale of State property, serving as the Defendant Dtax Office, Etax Office, etc. on June 3, 1998 at the time of the sale and purchase of the title of the registration date on March 25, 198, in the name of H, on the ground of the title holder of the registration date of the registration date; C, a public official who was in charge of the affairs concerning the sale of State property, serving as the Defendant Dtax Office, E Tax Office, etc. on June 3, 1998, is in the state-owned land of 9,818mm2 (State property under the management of the Forest Office) in the name of the land owner prior to the division on July 8, 1974, on the ground of the bid for H to acquire State property; C, the ownership transfer registration in the name of H is completed by preparing the bid registration statement and tender;

Article 7(1) of the former State Property Act (amended by Act No. 2950 of Dec. 31, 1976) explicitly prohibits employees engaged in the affairs related to State property from strictly pointing out the most conspicuous act that may be suspected of being illegal in order to promote fairness in the affairs related to disposal of State property in accordance with the legislative intent of Article 1 of the same Act, and to invalidate it as to the judicial effect of the act violating the prohibition. In full view of the fact that a public official in charge of disposal borrowed a third party’s name, the act of acquiring State property in collusion with the public official and the purchaser of State property to realize the result of the prohibition of mandatory law, which is an evasion of law, is not more acceptable.