The requirements for cancellation of a lease or sub-lease contract for a person who has de facto possession of the property devolving upon the State, in the event of a lease or sub-lease contract made by the authorities.

If a person who has no right to file an appeal for the property devolving upon the State has leased or non-leased with the administrative agency, he/she shall acquire a certain right.

Synam

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 63Gu69 delivered on March 26, 1964

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for an appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Even if the actual possession of the property devolving upon the defendant's legal representative's ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be said to have the right to appeal in the lease or purchase contract, the contract shall be acquired by creation of a certain right as a contract if the government-invested agency entered into a lease or a sub-contract from the government-invested agency. Thus, the government-invested agency may not revoke the above administrative disposition without permission unless it infringes on another person's rights due to the above administrative disposition or damages public interest.

In this case, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below as evidence of the original judgment, the non-party 1's 21's 21's 52's Y-dong 21's Y-dong 11's 52's Y-dong 21's Y-dong 21's Y-dong 21's 52's 18's Y-dong 1956's 22's 3's 27's 1956's 12's 5's 17's 5's 17's 5's 5's 5's 5's 5's 5's 5's 5's 17's 5's 5's 5's 5's 5's 5's 1's 5'''''''s 17'''''''''''s 71'''''''''''''''''''''G 271'''''.

Therefore, the plaintiff, who actually occupied and used the site that is not included in the terms of the above contract for the sale and lease, was the government-invested authority, and the plaintiff acquired the right to acquire ownership by paying the purchase price in full for the site of this case. However, it is not unreasonable for the government-invested authority to cancel the sale and lease contract with the plaintiff on the ground that the government-invested authority erroneously made the lease or the sale and purchase contract for the site of this case to the plaintiff prior to the plaintiff, and the court below did not err in cancelling the sale and purchase contract with the plaintiff on the ground that the government-invested authority erroneously made the lease or the sale and purchase contract for the site of this case to the plaintiff before the plaintiff. The court below's judgment with the purport above is just, and the plaintiff confiscated the legitimate possession of the building site of the non-party-ho, or the fact-finding of the court below was erroneous in the

Therefore, this case's ground of appeal is not possible to be employed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)