[1] Nature of acquisition of ownership by agreement under Article 25 of the Land Expropriation Act

[2] Whether extinctive prescription of the right to claim for transfer of ownership is in progress where the buyer loses possession while taking over the real estate and taking advantage of it (affirmative)

[1] Although a consultation under Article 25(a) of the Land Expropriation Act has been reached between a project operator and a landowner, where a project operator fails to obtain confirmation from the competent Land Tribunal as to the completion of the consultation as prescribed by Article 25-2(a) of the same Act, he/she shall complete the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the general principles of changes in real estate rights due to a juristic act in order to acquire the land ownership. The land ownership shall not be acquired at once even

[2] Where the buyer of a real estate takes over the object of sale and uses and benefits therefrom, the buyer's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership is not subject to extinctive prescription. However, if the buyer loses possession of the object and uses and benefits therefrom any longer, the extinctive prescription of the buyer's right to claim the transfer registration shall run from the time of loss of possession.

[1] Article 25 of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 162 (1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3871 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3308), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2732 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2137), Supreme Court Decision 94Da25209 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 480), Supreme Court Decision 95Da3510 delivered on February 13, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 931 delivered on April 26, 1996) (Gong196Sang, 196Sang, 199, 29Da36399 delivered on April 26, 196 (Gong1996Sang, 1716) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da363989 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong196394, 297Da9636949497)

Daegu Metropolitan City (Attorney Yoon-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and six others (Attorney Im Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 95Na6046 delivered on October 30, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Although an agreement under Article 25(a) of the Land Expropriation Act has been reached between a project operator and a landowner, if a project operator fails to obtain confirmation from the competent Land Tribunal as to the formation of agreement pursuant to Article 25-2 of the same Act, he/she shall complete the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the general principles of changes in real estate rights due to juristic acts in order to acquire the land ownership. The land ownership shall not be acquired at once without completing the registration of ownership transfer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Da1528, Nov. 14, 1978; 92Da2139, Sept. 14, 1992; 95Da3510, Feb. 13, 1996). The decision of the court below to the same purport is proper, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the consultation in land expropriation. There is no ground for appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Where the buyer of a real estate takes over the object of sale and uses and profits from the object, the buyer's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership is not subject to the extinctive prescription, but if the buyer loses possession of the object and uses and profits from it any longer, the extinctive prescription of the buyer's right to claim the transfer registration shall run (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da40924, Jul. 24, 1992; 96Da68, Sept. 20, 196). The court below recognized that the plaintiff lost possession of the land of this case by evidence adopted by the court below, and determined that the extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership has run after the lapse of the extinctive prescription, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on indirect possession and the extinctive prescription as discussed above.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)