[2] Whether a state-owned land which is a miscellaneous property becomes an administrative property only by being determined and publicly announced as a park under the Urban Planning Act (negative)

[2] A state-owned land determined and publicly announced as a park under the Urban Planning Act should be determined by at least Article 4 of the Urban Park Act and its location, scope, etc. shall be determined, but it shall be an administrative property as "property determined to be used for public purposes" under Article 4 (2) 2 of the State Property Act and Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

1. On the second ground for appeal

Article 5 (2) of the State Properties Act provides that "State property shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 245 of the Civil Act: Provided, That this shall not apply to any miscellaneous property, except in the case of any miscellaneous property." Thus, even if the acquisition by prescription is completed at the time of the date of acquisition of the miscellaneous property where the miscellaneous property was originally acquired as administrative property, it is impossible to file an application for registration of ownership transfer

In addition, even a state-owned land determined and publicly announced as a park under the Urban Planning Act shall be determined by at least Article 4 of the Urban Park Act and its location, scope, etc. shall be determined, but it shall be an administrative property as "property determined to be used for public purposes" under Article 4 (2) 2 of the State Property Act and Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted the plaintiff's assertion that the acquisition by prescription on January 1, 1985, which was 20 years from January 1, 1965, which was 20 years from the original judgment, among the 989m2 (hereinafter "the land in this case") 1,583m2 (hereinafter "the land in this case") in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the land in this case was completed, while it was decided and announced as the return park (the previous return park, hereinafter "the park in this case"), which was 232 of the notification of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation on June 1, 1980, and the Urban Park Act governing matters concerning urban parks, which was implemented from June 1, 1980, which was rejected the plaintiff's claim for the registration of transfer of the land in this case as administrative property from the date of the expiration of the prescription period of 1980m2.

However, in accordance with the evidence that the above date of retirement village was determined and announced as the park of this case on or before January 1, 1985 when the prescriptive acquisition was completed, the court below held that Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-2, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, and 9-2, although Eul evidence 8-1, 2 did not clearly indicate the record of the protocol, it appears that the land was included in the park of this case on or after the upper half of April 9, 1969, in light of the drawing, etc., it is not clear that the land was included in the park of this case on or after the second half of the construction of this case on or after the second half of the construction of this case on or after the second half of the construction of this case on or after the second half of the construction of this case on or after the second half of the construction of this case on or after the second half of the construction of this case.

Therefore, since the land of this case is deemed to be administrative property as of December 26, 190, it cannot be filed for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription thereafter. Ultimately, the conclusion of the judgment below that the land of this case is an administrative property before the completion of the acquisition by prescription asserted by the plaintiff cannot be filed for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription against the land of this case is justifiable, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to administrative property as alleged in the ground of appeal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The argument in the grounds of appeal on

2. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, it is proper for the court below to reject the plaintiff's assertion that from January 1, 1965, the part of the above drawings among the land in this case, which became State property, has been occupied by 269 square meters in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State Property, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts against the rules of evidence alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)