The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Article 5 (2) of the State Property Act provides that state property shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 245 of the Civil Act. Since Article 5 (2) of the State Property Act applies only after it was enacted by Act No. 2950 on December 31, 1976, it cannot be excluded from subject to prescriptive acquisition unless state property is for public use (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da1198 delivered on August 30, 196, Supreme Court Decision 79Da1080 delivered on September 25, 1979). Since the possessor of property devolving upon the State bears the duty of custody against the State pursuant to subparagraph 33 of the Military Government Act, such possession constitutes another owner in the nature of the title (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da2790 delivered on March 23, 197). Thus, even in such a case, the Plaintiff’s new acquisition of land that was lawfully transferred to the State property by an intention of possession, which was not subject to prescriptive acquisition, and thus, it is not subject to new acquisition.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff believed that the land of this case was legally distributed and paid farmland tax, etc. with the intention of ownership after completing the redemption of the land of this case. Thus, in this case, the plaintiff's possession shall be deemed to be the peace and public performance possession, and therefore, it shall not be deemed to be different solely on the ground that the plaintiff did not obtain the government's permission under Article 5 of the former State Property Act. Thus, this issue is groundless.

3. The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

Even in light of the record, the court below is justified in recognizing that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case from May 10, 1956 to 20 years, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence. This paper also is without merit.

4. The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

Article 8(3) of the Addenda to the Civil Act and Article 245(1) of the Civil Act provide that “A person who occupies real estate in peace and openly held with an intention to own it for a period of 20 years shall acquire ownership by filing for registration.” Thus, the completion of the above period of acquisition of ownership does not directly take effect upon the completion of the period of acquisition of ownership. However, the right to claim for registration for the acquisition of ownership shall take effect on the ground thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da977 delivered on September 27, 1966). However, even if the Defendant completed the registration under the name of July 10, 1978 with respect to the land of this case, which was reverted to the Defendant, but remains unregistered, even if it was not registered as to the change of ownership, it is not a registration as to the change of ownership, and there is no complaint

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)