[1] Whether the real estate owned by a profit-making corporation whose stocks were held by Japan belongs to the property

[2] In a case where the land, the prescriptive acquisition of which has been completed, the content and the method of exercising the right of the acquisitor on the compensation

[1] Article 2(3) of the Act on the Property Reversion provides that the stocks or shares of a profit-making corporation established in Korea and to which Japan belongs shall be deemed to have been reverted to the stocks or shares. Thus, the property owned by a profit-making corporation to which Japan belongs shall be excluded from the property devolving upon which the stocks or shares were reverted to Japan.

[2] Even if the land to be expropriated was acquired by prescription, it is the owner of the land at the time of the completion of the period of the acquisition by prescription and is the one who acquires by prescription only the one who is the owner of the land at the time of the completion of the period of the acquisition by prescription and thus, in case where the obligation to transfer ownership registration becomes impossible due to the expropriation of the land for which the acquisition by prescription has been completed, the one who acquired by prescription may claim for the transfer of the right to claim the payment of land expropriation compensation which he/she acquired in compensation for land expropriation to the landowner as the exercise of the so-called right to claim

[1] Article 2(3) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction / [2] Articles 245(1) and 390 of the Civil Act, Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da769 delivered on June 9, 1981 (Gong1981, 13989), Supreme Court Decision 86Da22309 delivered on September 9, 198 (Gong1986, 1386), Supreme Court Decision 94Da22309 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2813) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da25025 delivered on December 9, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 450), Supreme Court Decision 95Da2074 delivered on July 28, 195 (Gong195Ha, 2973), Supreme Court Decision 95Da13959 delivered on August 11, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 295Ha, 295Ha1595)

Pocheon Farmland Improvement Association (Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Members farm Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Young-sub et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 94Na5386 delivered on December 8, 1994

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court. The defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the claim for ownership transfer registration

Article 2 (3) of the Act on the Property Reversion provides that the stocks or shares of a profit-making corporation established in Korea and in which they belonged to Japan shall be deemed to have been reverted to the stocks or shares of a profit-making corporation. Thus, the property owned by a profit-making corporation to which the stocks belong to Japan belongs shall be excluded from the property devolving (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu804, Sept. 9, 1986; 94Da22309, Sept. 27, 1994; 94Da22309, Sept. 27, 1994). In this regard, even if all shares issued by the defendant company were owned by Japan, the land of this case, which is the ownership of the defendant company, is not the property devolving, and therefore, it shall not be excluded from the property subject to the acquisition by prescription, and there is no

There is no reason to discuss this part.

2. As to the confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land to be expropriated was occupied as a ditch from the time of completion of the Municipal Ordinance on March 31, 1957, and it is presumed that the above possession was done in peace and public performance with the intention of possession, and thus, on April 1, 1940, the ownership transfer registration was made in the company of the defendant, but on April 30, 1991, the non-party Korea National Housing Corporation expropriated the land and deposited 20,574,000 won as the deposited company of the defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 1, 1991. Meanwhile, the land to be expropriated was later recognized that the non-party 1,000 association, which was combined with the plaintiff association, continuously occupied as a ditch from the time of completion of the Municipal Ordinance on March 31, 1957, and thus, it was presumed that the above right to claim the acquisition of the land to be expropriated as a result of the land expropriation of the plaintiff company.

However, even if the Plaintiff Union acquired the land of this case by prescription, the owner at the time of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period is the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff Union is merely entitled to claim the registration of transfer of ownership effective against the Defendant Company. Thus, where the obligation of the registration of transfer of ownership becomes impossible due to the expropriation of the land, the Plaintiff Union can claim the transfer of the right to claim the payment of the compensation for land expropriation which it acquired in compensation for the land expropriation from the Defendant Company as the exercise of the so-called right to claim, but the right to claim the payment of compensation for land expropriation deposited against the Defendant Company cannot be claimed as the Plaintiff Union (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Da2074, Jul. 28, 1995; 94Da21559, Aug. 11, 1995).

Therefore, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's claim for confirmation that the above claim for payment of deposit money was made under the above facts without clarifying the above legal matters, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the effect of the completion of prescription and the claim for payment of deposit money. Therefore, the ground for appeal

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal against this part are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)