A. Legal nature of the act of selling the reverted property under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

(b) Whether the obligation to transfer ownership due to the completion of acquisition by prescription belongs to the State where residual property of a dissolved public-service corporation reverts to the State (negative);

A. The sale of state property by an administrative agency may be a private sales contract under the private law, but the sale of property devolving upon the State under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State is not a sale under the private law.

(b) Article 13 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Interest Corporations provides that residual property of a public-service corporation dissolved shall revert to the State or a local government as prescribed by the articles of incorporation, and that the residual property at the time of dissolution of a corporation shall be reverted to the State, and shall not be deemed to belong to the State until the obligation to transfer ownership due to the completion of acquisition

(a) Articles 3 and 8 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 245(1) of the Civil Act; Article 13 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Interest Corporations;

A. Supreme Court Decision 65Da404 decided May 25, 1965 (No. 160) 65Da1386 decided Sep. 7, 1965; 66Nu157 decided Dec. 27, 1966

Plaintiff 1 and five others, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na20694 delivered on February 13, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Since the act of the State in default of its own property under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction is not a kind of administrative disposition or a sale under private law, the court below's decision is not just because it did not recognize the fact that the land of this case was sold to the deceased non-party in gold 1,540 and all of the above payment was received, but it did not recognize the fact of a private sales contract, and it did not explain the reason that the disposal of the property devolving to the State cannot be a private sales contract. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

The sale of state property by the administrative agency can be a private sales contract, but it is not a sale or purchase under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership.

Therefore, if the instant real estate sold by the Defendant under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongings is not a property devolving upon the State, but a property devolving upon the State Foundation was owned by the non-party foundation, the argument of the theory that it constitutes the sale of another person’s rights under Article 569 of the Civil Code cannot be adopted, and the precedent of the theory of the lawsuit is inappropriate in this case, and it cannot be interpreted as the theory

On the third ground for appeal

Article 13 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Interest Corporations provides that residual property of a public-service corporation dissolved shall be reverted to the State or a local government in accordance with the articles of incorporation, and that residual property at the time of dissolution of a corporation in accordance with the articles of incorporation of the said public-service corporation shall be reverted to the State, and the obligation to transfer ownership due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription of the said public-service corporation shall not be deemed to belong to the State, and it shall not be interpreted that the obligation of the State comprehensively succeeds

On the fourth ground

In light of the fact that the court below notified creditors to report their claims in the corporate liquidation procedures, it is not determined that the remaining assets are positive assets, and that the plaintiff did not report his rights, but did not recognize that there was a peremptory notice to report such rights in the liquidation procedures of the said foundation.

The court below's decision does not contain any error of law in finding facts without evidence or incomplete hearing.

On the fifth ground

The precedents of the theory of lawsuit do not hold that the provisions on the contract of sale and purchase under the Civil Act apply to the disposal of the property devolving upon the State, on the other hand, because the disposal of the property devolving upon the State includes the nature of the contract of sale under the private law.

There is no reason for this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)