Whether the disposition of selling State property is subject to administrative litigation

Even though the sale of state-owned properties is somewhat limited compared to the sale under the state-owned properties Act, it is reasonable to see that the administrative agency is an act of disposal in the equal status with the citizen, which is not subject to administrative litigation.

Article 26 of the State Property Act and Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Nu59 delivered on February 22, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 1001Da10011 delivered on February 22, 197, Supreme Court Decision 200Nu11 delivered on July 11, 197, Supreme Court Decision 74Nu47 delivered on July 16, 1974

Plaintiff

Head of Seoul Railroad Bureau

(1) The plaintiff's principal lawsuit is dismissed.

(2) Litigation costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff, on September 19, 1973, revoked the disposition that the defendant sold to 2,00 Yongsan-ro 2 to 6,602 as one of the two materials located in Yongsan-gu, Seoul. The plaintiff sought a judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's real estate stated in the purport of the claim as the cause of claim is a state property under the jurisdiction of the defendant, which was leased and used a part of the real estate after the cancellation of the lease contract with the plaintiff on or around March 1968, and the defendant sold and disposed of a part of the real estate to another person on or around September 1973. Thus, the defendant's disposition was unlawful because the plaintiff's status as the right holder of the annual interest was entirely taken into account. First of all, the defendant's administrative disposition, which is the object of the administrative litigation, refers to the administrative disposition that is the object of the administrative litigation, which is the object of the administrative litigation, and the administrative agency's act of selling the property on an equal footing to the people, should not be subject to the administrative litigation. Thus, even if the defendant's act of selling the state property is somewhat limited compared to the sale under the jurisdiction of the State Property Act, it is reasonable to view it as an administrative agency's act of disposal on the equal status with the people (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4290Da1390).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this case reached the principal lawsuit on the premise that the defendant's disposition of selling State property in this case is an administrative disposition is dismissed as it is improper to determine it, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)