beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.11.04 2019가단23731

점유권확인

Text

The claim of this case is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 17, 2002, the Defendant: (a) registered the land category as “ditch”; and (b) registered the owner as “state” in the name of the Defendant on January 31, 2004 without being registered on the land cadastre or the copy of the register; (c) registered the land category as “ditch”; and (d) completed registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant on January 31, 2004.

B. From April 1998, the deceased on December 29, 2017, while the deceased resided in D, which is an unauthorized building located on the ground of the instant land, in Ansan City, which is an unauthorized building located on the ground of the instant land.

The plaintiff is a dead-type net E in the net C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 8, 9, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion C was dead on December 29, 2017, which was after the expiration of the prescriptive acquisition period, while occupying and using the instant land with the intention of ownership from December 2, 1997, and the Plaintiff, the deceased, on the part of the deceased C, inherited the network C. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the part of the Plaintiff’s share of 1/14 out of the instant land on December 1, 2017 for the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period.

3. First of all, we examine whether the instant land is a general property subject to prescriptive acquisition.

However, Article 7 (2) of the State Property Act provides that "it shall not be subject to the acquisition by prescription, notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act, the administrative property shall not be subject to the acquisition by prescription." Thus, in order to complete the acquisition by prescription for the State property, the state property shall be the general property which can continue to be an object of the acquisition by prescription, not the administrative property, for the period of acquisition by prescription. The burden of proof for this point

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da19528, Dec. 10, 2009). Meanwhile, artificial state property, such as ditches, is either designated by a statute or determined to be used for public purposes by an administrative disposition.