[은익재산확인등][집35(3)민,90;공1987.11.15.(812),1627]
Whether property transferred to a private person with knowledge that the State is a state-owned property is concealed.
If the state knowingly knowingly transfers any property to a private person according to the procedures prescribed by related laws and regulations, it exercises the right to the property which the state knows that it is a state-owned property, so even if the ownership of the property is naturally returned to a state-owned property, it cannot be said that it is a concealed state-owned property under Article 157(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act.
Article 53 of the State Property Act and Article 57 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act
Supreme Court Decision 72Da681 Delivered on May 21, 1972
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others
Korea
Gyeonggi-do Attorney Lee Ba-ho, Counsel for defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 86Na3566 delivered on April 28, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
1. According to Article 57 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, the term "harbor state property" means state property registered or recorded in the name of a person other than a state on which a registry or other public record is recorded, and the state is not aware of such fact. Thus, if the state knows that state property is a state-owned property and transfers it to a private person in accordance with the procedures prescribed by related Acts and subordinate statutes, it exercises its right to the state-owned property, which is known to the state as a state-owned property. Thus, even if the ownership of the property is naturally null and void, it shall not be deemed a concealed state-owned property (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da681 delivered on May 31, 1972).
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above 10,414 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi High-gun ( Address 1 omitted), 3,55 square meters prior to the Gun ( Address 2 omitted), and 6,031 square meters prior to the original river site managed by the Governor of Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case") was a large river site within 20 years prior to the time of the installation of a river structure, and a new river basin was formed and a river flows more than two ways due to the formation of a new river, and that the above land was transferred to the non-party on November 25, 196, on the premise that the non-party's request for the transfer of ownership was made on the ground that the above land was transferred to the non-party on the ground that the non-party's construction of a new river structure was null and void on the ground that it was the non-party's construction of a new river and the non-party's construction of a new building on the ground that land was transferred to the non-party.
All party members of the theory are not legitimate in this case, so they should not be employed. All arguments are groundless.
3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)