Whether it can be viewed that there exists a private right to preserve against the State merely because it has the expectation from the competent agency that the State is in a position to purchase the State property by a negotiated contract (negative)

It cannot be deemed that there exists a right under the private law to preserve against the State merely with the expectation that the person holding the right to possess the state property with permission for use from the competent authorities has the expectation that he/she will be in a position to purchase it by a free contract.

Article 404 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellant Kim Yong-jin, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Samcheon-ri et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na27565 delivered on April 30, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In this case where the plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case against the defendant on behalf of the State, the court below held that the plaintiff's right to preserve the land of this case is unlawful on the ground that the plaintiff can not be viewed as having any judicial claim against the State in the form of a private contract, and there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff has any such right to claim against the State, and that there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff has any such right to claim against the State. Thus, the court below cannot be viewed as having any legal right to preserve the State, and there is no evidence to find the existence of the above right to claim against the State according to the records.

In the end, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, lack of reasons, and misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal of the theory related to the object of subrogation cannot be accepted without the need to judge.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)