Where a person who was an employee of a corporation which has already been dissolved occupies and uses the property devolving upon such corporation in the qualification of employee, and has the right of association;

With respect to the property devolving upon a dissolved enterprise, it shall not be known that the former employee of such enterprise entered into a joint lease agreement with the administrative agency. However, the fact that the former employee occupied and used the property devolving upon the qualification of the employee does not necessarily mean that the former employee under the Act on the Disposal of Property devolvingd on the ground that he/she occupied and used it.

Article 15 of the Act on Asset Disposal for Reversion

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Director General of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Government

Any administrative disposition that revoked on November 10, 4288 the lease contract concluded between the defendant and the defendant as of December 22, 4287 with respect to the real estate recorded in the attached list, which is the property devolving upon the defendant, and any administrative disposition that entered into a lease contract with the non-party 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on January 26, 4289 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On September 12, 4286, the Plaintiff’s legal representative sought a ruling of the same place of claim, which is the original property owned by the Seoul Certified Corporation, which is the property devolving upon the general property. On December 22, 4287, the Plaintiff, etc. entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the property devolving upon the Plaintiff as non-resident on the short-term date as of December 22, 4287. On November 10, 4288, the Defendant cancelled the lease agreement with the Plaintiff as the execution of exhibition on the short-term date as of November 10, 4288. According to the ruling of the court below, even after the dissolution of the general property, the property devolving upon the Plaintiff’s legal representative’s prior order should be made in accordance with the 7th anniversary of the establishment of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff’s legal representative, and thus, the property devolving upon the Plaintiff’s legal representative’s request for the rent of the real property is unreasonable.

The defendant's legal representative sought a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's dismissal and issued an administrative disposition as to the property devolving upon the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff's main office, and the non-party's Seoul Authorized Person was a central enterprise belonging to his jurisdiction on September 12, 4286, but the defendant filed an appeal on December 8, 428, but the above facts are denied. In other words, since the above property belonging to the defendant was occupied by the non-party 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as Seoul Authorized Person's members from September 4287, the non-party's legal representative's right to use the property belonging to the defendant's head of the non-party 1, 287, and the non-party's legal representative's right to use the property belonging to the defendant's head of the non-party 1, 287, and the non-party 2, 3, 3, 5, and 6 were not found to belong to the non-party 1 and the defendant 2.

The defendant concluded a lease agreement with the plaintiff on December 22, 4287 and concluded a lease agreement with the plaintiff on November 10, 4288, and the defendant cancelled the lease agreement with the plaintiff on January 26, 4289 and issued an administrative disposition to enter into the lease agreement with the non-party 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on January 26, 4289, and the fact that the property belonging to this case was dismantled on September 12, 4286 by the non-party Seoul Certified Corporation, but the company did not actually occupy and use the property belonging to this case, and the non-party 1 and 5 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the only relative, etc. who moved into the lease agreement with the plaintiff in the capacity of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were subject to the revocation of the lease agreement with the plaintiff and the non-party 1's claim for the cancellation of the right to own property belonging to the plaintiff and the non-party 5.

Judges Seo Dog-Appellee (Presiding Judge)