[소유권이전등기말소][집19(1)민,186]
Since the possessor of the property devolving upon the State is obliged to keep the property in custody of the State pursuant to subparagraph 33 of the military law, the possession is the possession of the property in the nature of the title.
Since the possessor of the property devolving upon the State has a duty to keep the property in custody in accordance with the military law No. 33 (Abolition), the possession is deemed to be the possession in view of the nature of the source of authority, and even if the sale and purchase disposition of the property devolving upon the State is null and void as a matter of course, the possession is deemed to be the possession of the property.
Article 245 of the Civil Act
Korea
Defendant 1 and eight others, the deceased Nonparty 1’s taking over litigation.
Defendant 10
Gwangju High Court Decision 69Na290 delivered on November 3, 1970
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.
(1) The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on the Plaintiff’s inside of the litigation performer are determined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the judgment below's determination that around September 8, 1947, 200 square meters of this case were owned by Nonparty 2, who was originally owned by Japan, and was in fact a dry field around April 1, 1941, by dividing 33 square meters of the above land into 200 square meters, and then changed its lot number and land category into 33 square meters in Gwangju City ( Address omitted), newly constructed a wooden village house on the above 33 square meters of land, and cultivated the remaining land by 167 square fields or dry field, or by collecting 167 square meters in the remaining land, and the Defendant deceased Nonparty 1 did not err in the misapprehension of the law of the court below's determination that the above portrait house was destroyed and discarded and constructed again one son and jugu house, and that it did not constitute an unlawful act of law by examining the above 173 square meters of land, including the above 330 square meters of land, and it did not constitute a sale of dry field and its related documents.
(2) Defendant 10’s grounds of appeal are examined as follows.
The court below ordered the possessor of the property in his name as of August 9, 1945 under the military law No. 33 to keep it later and ordered the possessor of the property in his name as of August 9, 1945, and thus the possessor of the property belonging to the State has a duty to keep it in custody against the State without permission of the authority. Thus, the possessor of the property belonging to the State is the possessor of the property in its nature, and even if the sale and purchase disposition of the property belonging to the State becomes null and void as of the beginning of the disposition, it shall be the possession without the beginning of the disposition. Therefore, the defendant's assertion for the acquisition of prescription is without any error of law
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court