[1] The nature of the possession in a case where a person who obtained authorization for the completion of the clearing land under the former Land Clearing Promotion Act possesses the reclaimed land without a purchase procedure (=the possession of other owner)

[2] The extinctive prescription period of a right to claim the sale of the reclaimed land held by a person who has obtained authorization for completion of the reclaimed land under Article 17 (1) of the former Land Clearing Promotion Act against the State (=10 years)

[1] Under the former Farmland Development Promotion Act (repealed by Act No. 1872 of Jan. 16, 1967, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Development Promotion Act), the construction is completed with the permission for the reclamation of state-owned unspecified land and the completion of the completion of the construction is not immediately acquired, but the ownership is acquired only after completing the registration of transfer of ownership by completing the redemption of the price and completing the registration of transfer of ownership. Thus, if a person who has obtained the authorization of the completion of the development of state-owned reclaimed land for which the purchase procedure under the same Act has not been implemented continues to possess such reclaimed land after the reclamation, such possession cannot be deemed as possession with the intention of exclusive control as his own property by the nature of the title, and it constitutes possession of State-owned land.

[2] Article 17 (1) of the former Farmland Development Promotion Act (repealed by Act No. 1872 of Jan. 16, 1967) provides that "the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall sell without delay to a person who has obtained authorization of completion of a state-owned land, the completion of which has been authorized pursuant to Article 12 (2), and accordingly, a person who has obtained authorization of completion of a reclaimed land has the right to require the State to sell the land, the completion of which has been authorized. However, the right of a person who has obtained authorization of completion of a reclamation shall be a right to demand sale of the land to the State, the other party, as a right to demand sale of the land. Thus, if it is not exercised for ten years, the extinctive prescription expires

[1] Article 245(1) of the Civil Act; Article 17(1) of the former Farmland Development Promotion Act (repealed by Act No. 1872 of Jan. 16, 1967); Article 17(2) of the same Act / [2] Article 17(1) of the former Farmland Development Promotion Act (repealed by Act No. 1872 of Jan. 16, 1967; Act No. 162 of the same Act); Article 162 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 98Da34948 delivered on September 17, 1998

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On June 21, 1983, the defendant requested the plaintiff to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of prescriptive acquisition on June 21, 1983 as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each land of this case"), and the defendant is paid 18,000 won by the plaintiff and at the same time, requested the plaintiff to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on each land of this case on June 20, 1963.

1. Basic facts

Comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence 3 (Evidence 9-4, evidence 4, evidence 5, and evidence 6, the plaintiff obtained a permit for reclamation on April 2, 1963 pursuant to the former Land Reclamation Promotion Act (No. 1028, Feb. 22, 1962, repealed) with respect to approximately 3,000 yellow land 1, 1953-1, 1953-1, 3,000 YYYY YYYY YYYY YYYYYY YYYY YYYY YYYYYY YYYYYYY YYYYYY YYYYYY YYYY

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, around the other hand, did not take a purchase procedure since the completion authorization was obtained for the above yellow land owned by the defendant, but it was occupied and cultivated with the knowledge of it as owned by the plaintiff, and since the plaintiff acquired the completion authorization and acquired each land of this case through 20 years from the time the completion authorization was obtained for each of the above land, the acquisition by transfer registration procedure for the completion of the above acquisition by prescription was completed. In addition, Article 17 of the former Land Development Promotion Act imposes an obligation on the defendant to sell to the person who has obtained the completion authorization, and therefore, Article 17 of the former Land Development Promotion Act imposes an obligation to sell the land to the person who has obtained the completion authorization. Thus, the plaintiff seeks to implement the transfer registration procedure for ownership as a result of the sale on June 20, 1963 with the payment of 18,000 won, which is the price.

3. Determination

First, with respect to the plaintiff's primary claim, the construction work is completed with the permission for reclamation of state-owned land under the former Land Clearing Promotion Act and the completion of the construction work is not obtained, but the right is acquired only after completing the registration of transfer of ownership after completing the procedure for purchase. Thus, if a person who has obtained the authorization for the completion of the purchase of state-owned land for which the procedure for purchase under the same Act has not been implemented continues to occupy it after the reclamation of the land, the possession cannot be deemed as possession with the intent to exclude the ownership of the owner by nature of the title and to control it exclusively as his own property, and it shall not be deemed as possession (refer to Supreme Court Decision 98Da17329 delivered on December 8, 1998). Thus, as alleged by the plaintiff, as alleged by the plaintiff, although the plaintiff obtained the authorization for the completion of construction under the above Land Clearing Promotion Act and each of the above land was occupied by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's primary claim cannot be seen as the plaintiff's possession of it.

Furthermore, as to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim, the defendant's right to purchase has expired after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry provides that "the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall sell to the person who has obtained the authorization of completion of state-owned land which has been approved under Article 12 (2) of the former Land Reclamation Promotion Act" and accordingly, the person who has obtained the authorization of completion of reclamation has the right to demand sale of the land which has been authorized to the State, but the right of the person who has obtained the authorization of completion of reclamation has the right to demand sale of the land to the State. However, the right of the person who has obtained the authorization of completion of construction is a right to demand sale of the land to the other party, which is a right to demand the other party, and the extinctive prescription has expired unless it has been exercised for ten years, since it is obvious that the extinctive prescription has expired after

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Yong-so (Presiding Judge)