logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1959. 9. 18. 선고 4291행상114 판결
[행정처분취소][집7행,025]
Main Issues

A person who possesses any property devolving upon the State without a legitimate title and

Summary of Judgment

If there is no application for the lease contract for the property devolving upon the State, it is not bound by the order of application, and it is merely an illegal possession without legitimate authority, which is merely an illegal possession without legitimate authority.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 15 and 29 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Plaintiff-Appellant

Bam Chemical Board, a foundation

Defendant-Appellee

Director-General of Chungcheongnam-do;

Intervenor-Appellee of the Defendant

United Nations Institute of Education, a foundation

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 57Da103 delivered on April 29, 1958

Reasons

According to the records of the case, this real estate is a forest land originally reverted to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and it is the property devolving upon the contract that has been transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and according to the original judgment, the court below held that the plaintiff had occupied a building on the ground before the original land by evidence, but it is clear that the plaintiff had confirmed an illegal possession without the defendant's approval, if there is a request for a lease agreement by a large number of lessees with respect to the property devolving upon the unregistered land which belongs to a contract, the court below held that the lease agreement should be made by the appropriate tenant or lessee at the discretion of the administrative agency, the order of application is not bound, and the building without the approval of the administrative agency is merely an illegal possession without a legitimate title. Therefore, the application for the order of electric lines or the fact that there was a prior possession of the building, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim by the plaintiff who transferred the right of tobacco has no merit and the original judgment is justified.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)

arrow