The purport of the proviso to Article 10 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongingd to the State is inevitable for the operation of enterprises.

“Where it is inevitable for the operation of the enterprise” as referred to in the proviso of this Article means the cases where it is inevitable for the operation of the enterprise purchased under the purview of this Article.

Articles 10 and 27 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Magnas

Director General of Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do

Seoul High Court Decision 61Na89 delivered on December 12, 1961

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 10 of the Asset Management Act provides that where one member of the persons belonging to the same family purchases real estate other than an enterprise or a house and a site of the property devolving upon the State, the person belonging to his family shall not purchase such real estate again at the same time, and the above provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the lease under Article 27 of the same Act, and where it is inevitable for the operation of an enterprise provided for in the proviso of Article 10 of the same Act, it shall be interpreted that there is an inevitable need for the operation of the enterprise, which is the property devolving upon the purchase provided for in the main sentence of Article 10 of the same Act in light of the legislative intent of Article 10 of the same Act. In this case, it is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the defendant on November 5, 1958 as to the property devolving upon the State and the 4/10 another 1/100 or more of the facilities belonging to it, and that the plaintiff does not legally establish the original judgment as to the property devolving upon the State and the attached facilities which the defendant had not been assigned to the original judgment.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man