beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal
A. The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensation for damages under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into Rivers, on the grounds that the Plaintiffs could not exercise their right to claim compensation against the Defendant, on the following grounds: (a) since the State occupied the instant bank site from the time of construction of Q around 1941 to the completion of the prescription for acquisition of possession in around 1961; and (b) since the said land was owned by the State pursuant to the river-related Acts and subordinate statutes; and (c) the said land was formally owned by the State pursuant to the river-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the lower court formally rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensation under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc.
B. However, in light of the legislative intent of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Loss when the owner of land incorporated into a river fails to receive compensation due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, even if the acquisition by prescription has been completed by occupying the land for 20 years, it shall be deemed that the landowner is merely unable to exercise a real right claim against the State based on ownership, and it shall not be an obstacle to claiming compensation for loss under the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation for Loss
C. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant for compensation for damages on the instant bank site. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the possessor’s status for which the acquisition by prescription for possession has been completed and on the compensation for losses under the Act
The plaintiffs' ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.
2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below held that the State of this case 1 through No. 15.