(a) The requirements that a State farmland falls under farmland to be distributed;

(b) Whether the State-owned railroad site is subject to prescriptive acquisition;

A. The railway land under the jurisdiction of the Joseon General Government is a state-owned administrative property devolved to the Republic of Korea from the United States Armed Forces under Article 33 of the Military Administration Act and Article 1 of the first Agreement on the Finance and Property between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America. Thus, even if the land was actually used for the actual cultivation at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the state-owned farmland is determined and determined as land not required for official or public use under Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act and transferred

(b) Land owned by the State as a site for railroad is state-owned administrative property, and thus is not subject to prescriptive acquisition.

A. Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act; Article 245 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Da1675 delivered on November 27, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 79Da1080 delivered on September 25, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 79Da1675 delivered on November 27, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 80Da236 delivered on December 14, 1982

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Korea

Jeonju District Court Decision 85Na333 delivered on February 13, 1986 --

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. Examining the evidence established by the court below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding that the land of this case was the State-owned property owned by Japan under the jurisdiction of the Japanese governor of the Korean War, which was the land adjacent to the railway tracks between the Jeonn Line General-Triju Station (which had been previously owned as a site for a railway even after the railway was transferred to neighboring land according to the measures for straight transit of railway tracks, while the railway was previously owned as a site for a railway), and it did not err in the rules of evidence, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.

2. If the land of this case was a railroad site under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Joseon General Co., Ltd. at a certain time, such land is a state-owned administrative property devolved to the defendant from the United States Armed Forces pursuant to Article 33 of the Military Administration Act and Article 1 of the first Agreement on Finance and Property between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America. Thus, even if such land was actually used for the actual cultivation at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the state-owned farmland shall be a farmland subject to distribution only if it was investigated and decided on the land that is not required for official or public use pursuant to Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Reform Act and transferred from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da1675, Nov. 27, 1979).

Therefore, the decision of the court below that the farmland allocation disposition in the original adjudication that distributed the land of this case to the non-party for the purport that the land of this case is not farmland subject to distribution under the Farmland Reform Act is just, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of the Farmland Reform Act or the State Property Act. The argument is groundless.

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for prescriptive acquisition under the judgment that the plaintiff has continuously cultivated the land of this case since it purchased it from the non-party on December 10, 1956, but the land of this case is a state-owned administrative property owned by the defendant as a railroad site, and thus is not subject to prescriptive acquisition. The above judgment of the court below is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to prescriptive acquisition. The arguments are groundless.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)