[1] The nature of the possession of the farmland which has not been distributed to the owner of the farmland (the owner of the farmland)

[2] Whether the possession of property devolving upon the State as a matter of course is converted into possession with the fact that the property devolving upon the State as a matter of course is converted into possession with the State

[1] Since a possessor of property devolving upon the State, including farmland, has the duty to keep it in custody pursuant to Article 3 of the Military Affairs Act, such possession constitutes another owner in view of the nature of his title. Since all property devolving upon the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America transferred his right to it pursuant to Article 5 of the first Agreement on Finance and Property concluded between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America on September 11, 1948, the possessor of the farmland devolving upon the Government of the Republic of Korea has been in the status of a custodian of the Government of the Republic of Korea from this time and is also in the possession of another owner. Meanwhile, Article 2(a) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State of the Republic of Korea referred to in the same Act refers to all property devolving upon the Government of the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 5 of the same Agreement, and farmland shall be treated separately by the Farmland Reform Act, it shall be interpreted that it constitutes property devolving upon the Government of the Republic of Korea.

[2] Even if the property devolving upon the State becomes the State property from January 1, 1965 under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963) and Article 5 of the Addenda of the Addenda, the possession does not change from the possession to the possession with the possession with the intention to hold with the intention to hold it with the intention to hold it as the State property, and even in this case, the existence of the ownership should be determined by the nature

[1] Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Military Court Act, Article 5 of the first Agreement on Finance and Property concluded between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America (Abolition), Article 2 and Article 4 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction / [2] Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction (Act No. 1346, May 29, 1963; effective December 31, 1964); Article 5 of the Addenda

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Da24622 delivered on January 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 451) Supreme Court Decision 91Da29507 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2815), Supreme Court Decision 91Da39917 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1031) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da54924 delivered on November 28, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 153), Supreme Court Decision 95Da4075 delivered on March 12, 199 (Gong196, 1240), Supreme Court Decision 90Da39539 delivered on March 24, 1995 (Gong196, 1240), Supreme Court Decision 205Da196395 delivered on March 16, 1996

Kim Man-Dan et al. (Attorneys Choi Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Busan District Court Decision 95Na2927 delivered on October 26, 1995

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the land in this case was farmland owned by Japan as of August 15, 1945, but it was the maximum of the non-party's life and his long-Nam (the plaintiff's decedent, the non-party 3 side 5 side 3 side 5 side 3 side 5 side 3) around 1947 and purchased the right to cultivate, and it was believed that the defendant received a repayment notice under the Farmland Reform Act as to the land in this case from the time of the purchase of the right to cultivate, and it was legally distributed, and completed the repayment by December 8, 1957, and the above maximum form was paid the land acquisition tax (farmland tax) and the property tax imposed on the land in this case, and the plaintiffs continued to cultivate the land in this case by succession, and rejected the defendant's assertion that the possession of the land in this case was completed from December 12, 197 to December 18, 197.

2. However, the court below cannot be viewed as a notice of payment or receipt of redemption rice on the land of this case since the above notice of payment (No. 4-1, No. 2, No. 44-45, No. 46-48) or receipt (No. 5-1, No. 5-2, No. 46-3, No. 46-48, the record No. 5-48, the number of the land to be repaid) is not indicated, among each evidence used as evidence of the above fact-finding, that each of the above documents cannot be seen as a notice of payment or receipt of redemption rice on the land of this case. Since the farmland belonging to neighboring areas of this case and the ordinary farmland distribution injury (No. 1, No. 1-2, No. 1-2) distributed the land of this case, the remaining evidence alone is difficult to recognize that the land of this case was distributed as at the time of original judgment.

Therefore, the court below's finding that the redemption of the land of this case was completed on December 8, 1957 without thoroughly examining the above evidence relations as above shall be deemed to have committed a violation of the rules of evidence and an unlawful act of finding facts without any evidence due to the incomplete hearing.

Moreover, since the possessor of the property devolving upon the State, including farmland, is obligated to keep it in custody pursuant to Article 3 of the Military Affairs Act, such possession constitutes another owner in the nature of the title. Since all the property devolving upon the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America transferred its rights pursuant to Article 5 of the first Agreement on Finance and Property concluded on September 11, 1948, the possessor of the farmland devolving upon the Government of the Republic of Korea shall be in the status of custodian of the Government of the Republic of Korea from this time and shall also hold another owner. Meanwhile, Article 2(a) of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Government of the Republic of Korea refers to all the property devolving upon the Government of the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 5 of the said Agreement, and farmland shall be separately treated pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, only if it falls under the property devolving upon the Government of the Republic of Korea under the Farmland Reform Act, it shall be interpreted that it still belongs to the State property devolving upon the State under Article 94 of the said Act.

However, as recognized above in the case of this case, if there was no distribution of the farmland of this case, which is the farmland to which the maximum consciousness of the above largest person or his heir belongs, the possession of the land of this case from December 8, 1957 to December 31, 1964 recognized by the court below as the commencement date of independent possession, and as recognized by the court below, if the possession of the land of this case was commenced by purchasing the cultivation right to the land of this case, which is the farmland to be reverted to the land of this case at around 1947, the possession of the land of this case was the possession by the nature of its source, and therefore, from January 1, 1965, possession of the land of this case as state property of this case shall also be deemed as the possession by the owner.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the acquisition by prescription was completed on December 8, 197 under the premise that the possession of the land in this case by the maximum formula of the plaintiffs, who are the decedents, from December 8, 1957 to December 8, 197, under the premise that the possession of the land in this case was an autonomous possession, is completed on December 8, 197, 197, since 20 years passed since December 8, 1957, the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thereby misunderstanding the legal principles as to the possession of the farmland reverted to the original state, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)