Even though the Board of Audit and Inspection made a request for correction in violation of Article 6 of the Rules on Examination of the Board of Audit and Inspection and revoked the disposition of selling property devolving upon the plaintiff, such disposition of revocation shall not be deemed null and void.

Even if the Board of Audit and Inspection made a request for correction in violation of Article 6 of the Rules on Examination of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the plaintiff revoked the disposal of the property devolving upon its maturity, it cannot be said that the disposition of revocation is a disposition which is void automatically.

Article 3 of the Act on Asset Disposal for Reversion

Korea

Defendant

Seoul Civil Area and Seoul High Court Decision 68Na862 delivered on February 6, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the defendant's grounds for appeal.

The following are the narrow distance in the debate. In other words, the plaintiff revoked the disposition of selling the property devolving upon the defendant [No. 103 square meters and No. 24 square meters] sold to the defendant on September 24, 1965, the plaintiff was bound by the Board of Audit and Inspection upon the request of the Board of Audit and Inspection for correction. However, this disposition of revocation is illegal, and the defect is significant and obvious, and thus it is null and void. In other words, the Board of Audit and Inspection requires a request for evaluation from an interested party to make such a request for correction against the executive branch, and the administrative litigation is not pending at the time (see Article 6 of the Regulations on the Examination of the Board of Audit and Inspection). The reason why the Board of Audit and Inspection has made the above request for correction is that the administrative litigation is still pending, and that the result has been corrected, and that the plaintiff should also be revoked the disposition of the property devolving upon the plaintiff's request for correction.

However, as seen above, even if the annual rent that the Plaintiff revoked the disposition of the sale of the property devolving upon the Plaintiff was bound by the Board of Audit and Inspection in violation of Article 6 of the Rules of the Board of Audit and Inspection, it cannot be said that the said disposition is a disposition which is null and void as a matter of course. The judgment of the court below that held to the purport is justifiable and there is no ground for misunderstanding legal interpretation or misunderstanding of legal principles, such as the attacking of the arguments. In addition, the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles. In addition, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal interpretation or misunderstanding of legal principles. In addition, the defendant filed an administrative litigation to confirm that the disposition of the disposition of the instant case is null and void (at present, the Supreme Court Decision 6Nu108 case is pending)

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet