(a) The time when good faith and negligence are required in the acquisition by prescription on the register;

(b) Time the State acquires the ownership of real estate by determining the purchase of requisitioned property; and

(c) Nature of the possession commenced by a condition subsequent to a cancellation;

A. As for the acquisition by prescription of the registry, the good faith and without fault are not related to the registration, but to the acquisition of possession, in the case of possession prior to the registration fee, the determination shall be made as to whether there was any negligence in the commencement of possession as of the time of the commencement of possession.

(b) When the State has decided to purchase requisitioned property of the Minister of National Defense, it shall acquire ownership on the condition that no certificate of compensation for requisition is issued or cash is paid or deposited. In such cases, the State shall acquire the right without registration pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Act.

C. Even in cases where the acquisition of ownership and the commencement of possession are attached to the conditions of rescission such as “B” as the acquisition of ownership, the possession may be deemed as a possession with the intention to own under Article 245 of the Civil Act.

a.Article 245(2)(b) of the Civil Code; Article 6 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property; Article 187 of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da46779 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1711), Supreme Court Decision 78Da842 delivered on September 12, 197 (Gong1978, 11067)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 92Na40753 delivered on April 29, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the Minister of National Defense decided to purchase the land of this case at KRW 187,500 on Nov. 23, 1973 when the defendant collected, occupied, or used the land of this case. The Minister of National Defense deposited the purchase price in cash on Jun. 17, 1974, and entrusted the registration of the purchase price in cash and entrusted the registration of the ownership transfer to the defendant on Apr. 3, 1975. The court below rejected the defendant's objection to the ownership transfer registration of this case at the time when the ownership transfer registration of this case was completed on Nov. 23, 1973. The defendant decided to purchase the land of this case at the time six months after the due date under Article 6 of the Act on Special Measures for the Development of Land of this case was completed on Jun. 17, 1974. The court below rejected the defendant's objection to the ownership transfer registration of this case at the time when the ownership transfer registration of this case was completed under the above name of the defendant.

However, with respect to the acquisition by prescription of the registry, the good faith and without negligence are not related to the registration, but to the acquisition by possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu191, Aug. 18, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 91Da46779, Apr. 28, 1992). Meanwhile, upon the decision of the Minister of National Defense to purchase requisitioned property, ownership is acquired under the condition that the issuance of securities concerning requisition compensation or payment or deposit in cash has not been made. In such a case, the State shall acquire the right without registration pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Da842, Sept. 12, 1978). The possession commenced upon the acquisition of ownership shall be free from the charge of the Defendant’s acquisition with intent as stated in Article 245 of the Civil Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition by prescription of the above land as at the time of the commencement of possession.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)