The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the following facts.

The land of this case is the land divided by L, which is the plaintiff's increased portion, from 2,233 of the Gyeonggi-gun Co., Ltd. in 1913, and inheritance took place in sequence from L, etc., and finally the plaintiff,O, and P jointly inherited 1/3 shares.

B. Seoul UwA purchased a building constructed on the mother land of this case in around 1965 and began to occupy most of the mother land of this case. On January 20, 1990, the Seoul UwA included approximately 1/2 of the land of this case divided from the mother land of this case.

C. After the land cadastre of this case’s mother’s land was restored to the Z, the name was changed to the Z. The Defendant recovered the name of the owner on the land cadastre according to the relevant judgment on January 13, 1969. On August 8, 1980, the Defendant treated the mother’s land of this case as an unowned real estate and completed the registration of ownership preservation in its name pursuant to the relevant State Property Act and subordinate statutes.

On July 1, 1980, the Seoul Dairy Cooperative first applied for a loan on the portion of the mother land of this case occupied without permission. Accordingly, on October 13, 1980, the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who was the delegated manager of the defendant with respect to the mother land of this case, concluded the instant loan agreement with the purport of lending 265 square meters out of the mother land of this case to the Seoul Dairy Cooperative. around that time, the Seoul Dairy Cooperative imposed the indemnity for the illegal possession for five years from 1975 to 1980.

E. On the other hand, around December 30, 198, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City started construction of roads in the section 1 of the same Section, including the land in this case, and the construction was completed on February 26, 1994, and thereafter the same road installed on the land in this case is offered as the passage of the public.

2. The court below held as above.