소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim is the owner of the C’s site and ground building in Samyang-si, and the Plaintiff occupied and used the portion of 48 square meters in the ship (A) connected each point of the attached Form No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and1 among the areas of 150 square meters adjacent to the Defendant from around March 1930, which was owned by the Defendant, in sequence, from around 1930, as the land owner of the said building site and ground. The Plaintiff occupied and used the said land as the site and the building site of the said building and the building site of the said land. The Plaintiff occupied and used the said land as the building site and the building site of the said land.
Therefore, on December 31, 2007, which was 20 years from December 31, 1987, the prescription period for the acquisition of possession was completed, and accordingly, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer is sought.
2. Article 7(2) of the State Property Act provides, “Administrative property shall not be an object of prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act,” so, in order to complete the prescriptive acquisition of State property, the State property shall be a general property that can continue to be an object of prescriptive acquisition, not an administrative property, for the period of prescriptive acquisition, and the burden of proof on this point shall be borne by the person who asserts the prescriptive acquisition.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da29890, Oct. 9, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da19528, Dec. 10, 2009). Moreover, in a state where administrative property loses its function and does not provide it for its original purpose.
Even if the administrative property is not subject to the acquisition by prescription as long as it is not subject to the relevant laws and regulations, it is not a general property subject to the acquisition by prescription, but a declaration of intention to abolish the public property can be made by implied means, but it cannot be deemed that an implied declaration of intention to abolish the public property is not provided for its original purpose.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da58957 Decided November 25, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 93Da42658 Decided April 28, 1995). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is between the health unit and the parties.