logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1959. 2. 12. 선고 4291민상50, 51 판결
[부동산소유권확인][집7민,032]
Main Issues

The scope of Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongingd to the State is recognized as a site according to the Market Price Plan.

Summary of Judgment

A person dismissed from office as a custodian of property owned by a domestic corporation whose shares were vested in the U.S. military court shall not continue even after the enforcement of this Act.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction; Articles 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act; Article 24 of the Decree on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction;

Plaintiff-Appellee

Korea Commercial Corporation

Defendant-Appellant

Doz. Doz. Doz.

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court, Seoul High Court, Seoul High Court, etc.

Reasons

According to the original judgment, the court below acknowledged that the right to manage the farmland belonging to the city planning zone was transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on May 9, 1951 to the administrative agency, and the land was in conflict with the urban planning road of 25 U.S. dollars and 28 U.S. dollars before August 15, 195, the competent agency at the time of this case distribution shall be not the agricultural and forestry authority but the government agency at the time of this case distribution. Therefore, even if the agricultural and forestry authority did not have the right to distribute the land, and if the land was distributed to the defendant by its own interpretation, it is an absolute act other than the authority, and that the disposition of this case against the defendant was an administrative disposition of nullification per annum. However, since the proviso of Article 2(1) of the Farmland Improvement Act was enforced by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the land was actually in conflict with the land category and market price of the building under Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, the land category and market price of the building is not included in the existing land plan.

Justices Lee Dong-tae (Presiding Justice)

arrow