Whether it is possible to deny the acquisition of ownership by the person who has not obtained the property devolving upon the State without the right of association

Even if a person who has the right to preferential purchase is deprived of the preferential right of the person holding the right to purchase the building site, which is the property devolving upon the State, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in his/her name, the ownership shall not be denied unless the disposition of

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da31 delivered on May 22, 1973

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Jinju Branch of Busan District Court (72 Gohap62)

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

Defendant 2 removed 114-2, 114-2, 40, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, and 1,2,2,000.

The court costs are assessed against the defendants and the declaration of provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The fact that approximately 114-2 of Jin-si Alternative Plan 114-2 of Jin-si, Jin-si, the land was registered for transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff is no dispute between the parties, and thus, the above land is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff. The defendants asserted that the above land is owned by the plaintiff. Despite the fact that the above land is a related party who had been occupied by the defendant, etc. from June 25 to June 25, as the property originally reverted to the plaintiff, and constructed the building on that ground, the plaintiff neglected the right of preferential purchase by the right holder, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the above land by disregarding the right of preferential purchase by the right holder. Thus, the above disposition cannot be revoked by the law on the property devolving upon the right of ownership of the above land. Thus, even if the above defendants' assertion by the above defendants is recognized, so long as the above ground alone does not revoke the disposal of the land of this case in the country, such disposition is legitimate, and the above ground for appeal by the defendants is groundless.

Meanwhile, since the fact that the defendant et al. owns each building stated in the purport of the claim on the building site is the person, the defendant et al. has a legitimate right to own the above building on the building site, and there is no assertion or proof that the defendant et al. has a legitimate right to own the above building on the building site, the defendant et al. has a duty to remove the above building on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for the performance is reasonable and reasonable, and the plaintiff's claim for the performance is accepted. The conclusion is just in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 384, 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ju