The case holding that the possession of substitute land, which is given to the settlement of the people of the Republic of Korea as a result of the implementation of the chemical reorganization project, is the possession of the owner.

In light of the provisions of Articles 1, 8, 11, and 12 of the Reorganization Act, if the possessor of the land of this case moves to the land of this case due to the implementation of the chemical transfer rearrangement project executed by Gangwon-do, and if the land of this case is not a state-owned or public-owned land, it shall be deemed that only the above possessor who created the land of this case as a part of the chemical transfer rearrangement project is granted the right to cultivate to the farmland of this case. Thus, his possession is the owner possession in the nature of his title, and unless there are other special circumstances, the nature of his possession shall not be deemed to be converted to the possession on the part of the land of this case, on the ground that he built a house on the land

Articles 197, 245 of the Civil Act, Articles 8, 11, and 12 of the Reorganization Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Chuncheon District Court Decision 92Na1999 delivered on February 12, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first and third grounds for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the above land was occupied by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's ownership was lost due to changes in ownership by purchasing the above land pursuant to Article 14 of the Land Clearing Promotion Act (Act No. 1532, Dec. 6, 196) since the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 purchased the land without the owner's permission for the purchase under the same Act (Article 14 of the same Act), the Do governor shall equally compensate for the land for five years from the purchase date (Article 16 of the same Act). Further, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired the above land from the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's new ownership development plan for the above 9-party 1 and the non-party 2's new ownership.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the provisions of Articles 1, 8, 11, and 12 of the Reorganization Act, as in the time of the judgment of the court below, Defendant 2 and Nonparty 2, etc., who moved to the land of this case due to the implementation of the chemical reorganization project executed by Gangwon-do, and since the land of this case is not the state-owned land but the private land owned by the plaintiff, it is deemed that only the above Defendant 2 and Nonparty 2, etc., who created the land of this case as farmland as part of the chemical reorganization project, were given the right to cultivate. Thus, the possession of the above persons is the owner possession in the nature of the title. Unless there are other special circumstances, since the above persons built and move to the land of this case, the possession of the land of this case cannot be converted to the possession with the possession with the intention of self-owned possession. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that deemed the defendants' possession as the owner possession is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption provision of autonomous possession such as theory

3. Therefore, all appeals by the defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)