In the case of abolition, establishment, division or merger of a local government, the scope of the succeeded property;

In the event of abolition, establishment, division, or merger of local governments, the new local government's property belonging to its jurisdiction, which is the principle of attribution of the property within its jurisdiction, and the newly-established local government's property belonging to its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, and Article 5 (2) of the same Act, states that "where it is difficult to divide the affairs and property of the local government by the area" shall be deemed to be the purport that the new local government shall succeed to the affairs and property of the local government without regard to

Articles 5 and 133 of the Local Autonomy Act

Busan Metropolitan City captain-gun (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Yangsan-si (Attorney Cho Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 97Na8991 delivered on January 15, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff was a local government newly established from March 1, 1995 under the Act on the Establishment of 9 Autonomous Gus in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Do, and Do, which had been under the jurisdiction of the Defendant, and was under the jurisdiction of the head of the Dong, the head of the Dong-Eup, the head of the Si/Eup, the iron-Myeon, the closure of the articles of association, the closure of the articles of association, and the members; (b) the land in this case was purchased by the Defendant for use as slaughterhouse site, etc. or acquired through exchange with the Defendant’s other land before March 1, 1995 for the purpose of creating alternative forest; (c) the Plaintiff was located within the Defendant’s jurisdiction until before the establishment of the

In addition, the court below determined that Article 5 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that the local government having jurisdiction over the area shall succeed to its affairs and property when there is a change of district, abolition, division, or merger of a local government, and that Article 133 (3) of the same Act provides that "property" means all property or rights other than cash, and since Article 133 (3) of the same Act does not limit the property subject to succession at the time of change of district, abolition, establishment, division, or merger of a local government, the property subject to succession under the above provision refers to all property within the changed area due to abolition, establishment, division, or merger, etc. of a local government, and that the land of this case naturally succeeded to the plaintiff as a matter of course, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the local government excluded the miscellaneous property held by the local government regardless of its administrative purpose, such as this case.

In the case of abolition, establishment, division or consolidation of local governments, the principle concerning the jurisdiction of the properties within their jurisdiction, which is stipulated to be "where it is difficult to divide the affairs and properties of local governments by the area" under Article 5 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 5 (2) of the same Act, which is stipulated to be "where it is difficult to separate the affairs and properties of local governments by the area", shall be deemed to be the purport that the new competent local government shall succeed to the property, regardless of the kinds of administrative property, preservation property, miscellaneous property, etc., unless there are any special circumstances. Therefore, in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just

The judgment pointed out in the ground of appeal cannot be a proper precedent in this case.

The argument in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)