The purport of Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for Asset Management to the Gu

The purport of the provision of Article 4 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 63, the invalidation) is that where a person interested in the sale of 1/2 or more of the stocks or shares reverted to a Dormant corporation or the property owned by a for-profit corporation, etc., which is not a Dormant corporation, does not file a lawsuit within the prescribed period, the sale of the property shall be deemed to be an illegal sale without the procedure for dissolution of the corporation and the procedure for liquidation under the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and that the sale of the property, the defect of which is cured under the above provision, shall be deemed to be a disposal without the delegation by the government authorities.

Article 4 of the Addenda to the Special Measures for the Management of Property Belonging to the Gu

Park Ho-hee

Korea

Seoul District Court Branch of the Seoul District Court (87Gahap3683)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant will implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on October 2, 1959 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto to the non-party (the defendant of the original trial).

The judgment that the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

No. 1-1 through 21 of evidence No. 1-21 (each copy of register), Gap evidence No. 2-1 through 21 (each copy of register), Gap evidence No. 9-1, 2-1, 10-1, 2-1, and 4-1 of evidence No. 4-1 of which the authenticity of a private document portion is presumed to have been established by the statement as there is no dispute over the establishment of a notarized part, and No. 3-1 of evidence No. 3 (a sales contract), 2 (a copy of sales contract), and 2-1 of the above document No. 4-2 (Receipt), each of the above witnesses’ testimony No. 9-2 (Receipt) and each of the above witnesses’ testimony before and after the judgment of the court below, the land of this case shall be deemed to have been sold to the plaintiff at the 15-1, 50-1, 50-1, 60-1, 5-2, and 5-1, 5-2, 196, and 5-1, 3.6.

The Plaintiff: (a) purchased the instant land, which is the property to which he belongs, through the said appellate district; and (b) completely paid the sale price of the said appellate district; (c) thus, the said appellate district filed a claim for ownership transfer registration based on the above sales contract held against the Defendant, or for ownership transfer registration based on the ownership itself of the said appellate district, in subrogation of the said appellate district, and sought implementation of the registration procedure for ownership transfer registration in the future of the said appellate district, for the land indicated in the attached Table 2, which is the land after the division on October 2, 1959; and (d) the Defendant initially owned the instant land, which was owned by the non-party Joseon Dai Co., Ltd., a domestic corporation established on October 15, 1943 (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party Co., Ltd.”); (c) even if the said appellate district still remains as owned by the non-party Co., Ltd. at the time of sale to the said appellate district, and thus, the sale disposition was null and void (the content of the Plaintiff’s brief appears to the purport).

Therefore, according to the above provisions of subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the U.S. military law, Article 2 (1) and (3), and Article 8 (1) 4 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Republic of Korea, all property (including stocks) owned by Japanese nationals as of August 9, 1945 were once reverted to the U.S. military office as of September 25 of the same year, again transferred and reverted to the Government of the Republic of Korea as of September 11, 1948, so that it can be sold to the Republic of Korea in accordance with the above legal procedure. However, in the case of a profit-making corporation established before August 9, 1945, only the shares owned by Japanese nationals shall be reverted to the property belonging to the Republic of Korea, and even if shares belonging only to the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea can dispose of the property owned by the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 after dissolution of the corporation as of August 9, 1945.

Therefore, out of the total shares issued by the non-party company, the shares of 3,500 shares owned by the above Japanese persons (as to about 97 percent of the total shares issued by the non-party company) were reverted to the defendant pursuant to each of the above laws and regulations. However, in selling the land of this case owned by the non-party company, the sale of the land of this case, which is owned by the non-party company, is erroneous in the property devolving upon the non-party company and did not follow the above dissolution procedure, and thus, the sale of the

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1254 Decided September 28, 1965; 64Da844,855 Decided May 4, 1966, etc.)

However, even if the above sale disposition is null and void due to its illegality, the plaintiff asserts that since the defect of the above sale disposition was cured under Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Property Belonging to the original state, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership in the late-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City as to each land

Therefore, pursuant to Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State (amended by Act No. 1346, May 29, 1963; effective January 1, 1965), the Minister of Finance and Economy, the head of private district office, or the head of a district tax office has sold all or part of the property of a Dormant Corporation prior to the enforcement of the said Act (excluding the sale by taking the procedure for dissolution), the sale of all or part of the property belonging to a nonprofit corporation, partnership, or other organization, which is not a Dormant Corporation, but a nonprofit corporation, the head office or principal office of which is not the Dormant Corporation, and the sale of all or part of the property belonging to the State, or the sale of the property belonging to the State or a Dormant Corporation, or the removal of the sale contract or lease contract for the property belonging to the State within the period of 30 years prior to the enforcement of the said Act. The purport of the above Act is that the disposal of the property belonging to the State or 2 months after its expiration.

However, according to the evidence cited above, it is clear that the non-party company's shares belonging to the non-party company under Article 4 of the Addenda to the Special Measures for the Management of Property belongs to a profit-making corporation. The land of this case is sold to the non-party company by the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do delegated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, who is not the authority of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Meanwhile, according to Article 17 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State (the "Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State at the time of entry into force in 1959), the decision of the purchaser of the property belonging to the State shall be made by the Minister of Finance and Economy (the "Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State" as of the sale of the property belonging to the non-party company without the consent of the Administrator of the Office of Agriculture and Forestry, or if the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do entrusted the sale of the property to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry without the authority of the non-party 1 to dispose of the property belonging to the government.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that the sale disposition of the land of this case against the defendant is valid shall be dismissed as it does not require any further determination. In this conclusion, the original judgment is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Lee Yong-hoon (Presiding Justice)