소유권이전등기말소 등
The judgment below
Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the land Nos. 10 through 13 is reversed, and this part is reversed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal on the land, which is an accessory facility to the steel farm, the lower court determined that each of the instant lands did not constitute a branch, concentration, or waterway, which is an accessory facility to the steel farm under Article 2(2) of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter “former Farmland Reform Act”).
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on land, which is an accessory facility
2. As to the ground of appeal on the acquisition by prescription
A. The lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion on this part on the grounds that even if the Defendant Republic of Korea occupied each of the instant land as a road or river from the time of the division and land category change, it cannot be recognized that the Defendants occupied each of the instant land with the intent to possess as much as there was no evidence that lawful acquisition procedures had taken place.
B. First, among each land of this case, we examine the sequence 1 through 9 of the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below.
The lower court’s determination that the presumption of independent possession by Defendant Republic of Korea was reversed solely for the reasons indicated in its reasoning is inappropriate, but examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the background leading up to the possession of each of the above land known by the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable in its conclusion, and there was no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine
C. However, among each of the lands of this case, each of the lands of this case is classified as “each of the lands within the instant case” and the individual lands are classified as “each of the lands within the instant case.”