Procedures for the Peremptory Notice of Contract Renewal as provided in Article 35 of the Act on the Reversion and Disposal of Property

In order to take effect as an instruction and order for the renewal of the contract under Article 35 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, the Administrator of the Agency shall notify each lessee of the conclusion of the renewal contract and shall make a general public notice only to those who have not received the notification after the due date. In addition, for those who have not known of the notification, it does not take effect as an instruction and order under the same Article.

Article 35 of the Act on Asset Disposal for Reversion

[Defendant-Appellant] 6, 4288Happa59 decided Sept. 6, 1955 (Article 35(5) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, Article 35(5) 146 of the Act, and Article 3342 house 2.

Plaintiff

Director General of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Government

The administrative disposition that the Defendant’s lease between the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor on November 23 of the same year that revoked the lease agreement between the Plaintiff on November 22, 4287 on the short-term 74 square meters of 189 square meters of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Joint 28 square meters shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On August 24, 4287, the Plaintiff had renewed the lease agreement on the site between the Director-General of the Office of Government Administration in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Defendant, on August 24, 4287, since the Plaintiff had resided in the building on the ground at the time of the 6.25 incident, which was originally leased by the government authorities and the land was remaining remaining. However, on the ground that the Defendant’s Intervenor filed a lawsuit, on the ground that the Defendant’s Intervenor did not take the renewal procedure within the prescribed period under the public notice of the date of October 27, 4287, the Administrator of the Office of Government Administration rendered a ruling to lease the land to the Defendant’s Intervenor on the ground that the Plaintiff did not take the renewal procedure within the prescribed period under the public notice of the date of the 27th, 4287, and the Defendant’s Director-General revoked revoked the lease agreement to the Plaintiff on November 22, 200.

However, even if the Defendant’s assistant intervenor did not have any relationship with the Plaintiff on the site of this case and there was a fact that the Administrator of the Office of Government Administration publicly announced that the lessee would not be bound by the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Defendant, that is, it would not have any grounds such as sub-paragraph (n). This merely means a simple legal measure taken by the Government Agency for the reorganization of the government affairs due to the loss of the government affairs related to the government affairs from the loss of the government affairs in the six and twenty five columns, and even if the contract was not concluded within the period of the public announcement, the previous lease agreement does not become null and void as a matter of course, and it does not constitute a ground for cancellation of the contract. Even if the advance notice was made to the Plaintiff, even if the renewal period becomes a cause for cancellation of the contract, the Director of the Office of Government Administration and Home Affairs would not allow the Defendant to waive the contract after the date, and thus, the Defendant would not waive the right of cancellation and lease the contract to the Defendant’s assistant intervenor to the Defendant.

The Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff’s motion to renew the lease contract, which was issued by the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract, was the fact that the Plaintiff leased the original site at the time of the original order, and the Plaintiff’s motion to renew the lease contract was denied. In other words, the Plaintiff’s motion to renew the lease contract at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract at the time of the 3-year short-term period of November 27, 4286, which was announced by the Administrator of the Office of Government Administration, was the short-term period of 4287, and the Plaintiff’s motion to renew the lease contract at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract at the time of the 1-year short-term period of 3-year short-term period of 4287. The Plaintiff’s motion to renew the lease contract at the time of the Plaintiff’s motion to the Plaintiff’s heir was not subject to any order to renew the contract.

The facts that the plaintiff had concluded a new contract for renewal on the site before and after the lapse of the initial period of time, and that the defendant's new contract for renewal was not concluded on November 2, 428, and that the defendant's new contract for renewal was not concluded on the premise that the plaintiff's new contract for renewal was not concluded on the ground that the former contract for renewal was not concluded on the ground that the former contract for renewal was invalid on or before the expiration of the period of time until October 27, 4286, and that the former contract for renewal was not concluded on or after the expiration of the period of time, and that the plaintiff's new contract for renewal was invalid on or after the expiration of the period of time after the expiration of the period of time, and that the new contract for renewal was not concluded on or after the expiration of the period of time limit of time limit of April 19, 287, the Administrator of the Administration shall notify the plaintiff's new contract for renewal to the effect that the new contract for renewal was not valid on or after the expiration of the period of time limit of time limit of time limit of time limit of time limit for renewal.

Thus, even though the contract for the renewal of this case which was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on August 24, 4287 is deemed lawful and valid, it is not possible to revoke the contract for the renewal of the objection against the plaintiff on the ground of the period of the prior announcement and the fact, and to avoid the illegality of the decision of the Administrator of the Office to lease the vehicle to the defendant's assistant intervenor, as well as to avoid the illegality of the decision of the Administrator of the Office of Government Administration to lease the vehicle to the defendant's assistant intervenor as well as from the time of each disposition executed by the Director of the Office of Government Administration based on the next illegal decision. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for the revocation of the objection against the disposition is reasonable, and therefore, it is accepted, and it is decided with the order by applying Article 14

Judges Hak-su (Presiding Judge)