Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Jeong Nam-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do (Attorney above-at-law)

November 13, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 260,425,90 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim of this case until the day of this judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of complete payment to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 17, 1910, the land research division prepared during the Japanese occupation point period, stated that Nonparty 1 was under the assessment of Nonparty 1’s document (number 3 omitted) 1,592, and the address of Nonparty 1 in the above land research team is vacant. The address of Nonparty 1 in the above land research team is vacant. This is based on the land research division prepared to the effect that, in a case where the location of the land in question and the address of the title holder are identical, the address is vacant.

B. As to the land under the foregoing circumstances, no cadastral record, such as a certified copy of the register and land cadastre, excluding the cadastral source map (round March 191, 191), exists due to an unknown cause. Provided, That a 3,906 square meters of a river (number 4 omitted) 10 square meters of a luminous-si (hereinafter referred to as “specific parcel number 1”) was combined on September 9, 2013 and a river 256,963 square meters of a river (number 4 omitted) was located in Gwangju-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). Of them, 5,263 square meters of a 5,00 square meters of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant

C. The land which was newly registered on October 5, 1983 and the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Republic of Korea has been completed on May 1, 1986, and among the remaining ten parcels, the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Republic of Korea has been completed on October 11, 1971; 1. 2. 3. 8. 20, August 20, 1986; 4. 8. 8. The registration of ownership preservation in the name of each Republic of Korea was completed on December 27, 1984; 4. In particular, the land is newly registered on October 5, 1983.

D. Ansan River was designated as a river under Article 2 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971) in accordance with the Act on the Name and Section Designation of Rivers, which was enacted by the Decree No. 1255 of Apr. 1, 1963. Under Article 12 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197), Ansan River was determined and publicly announced as the river area of Ansan River under Article 897 of the former River Act (amended by the Construction Notice No. 897 of Jun. 1, 1964), and the land of this case was included in each river ledger prepared around May 1, 199, around 196, and around 202 as the existing river area including the land of this case.

E. Meanwhile, during the period from around 1932 to around 1934, 193, 336,286 UN was invested into the friendly medication construction cost, and around March 31, 1936, the shipbuilding River Decree (amended by the Decree No. 16 of Apr. 4, 1938), which was enacted on Apr. 22, 1927, and partially amended by the Decree No. 11 of the Joseon River Decree (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 16 of Apr. 4, 1938). The measures recognized as the river section of the Hanyang River as part of the river section, the river section was announced publicly by the Japanese governor of the Japanese Government.

F. At present, the land in this case is from the shore bank site in Gyeyangcheon to the high-water site inside the shore, reservoir, and the high-water site inside the shore, and its detailed utilization status is as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 이 사건 토지 전체면적(㎡) 부호 면적(㎡) 이용현황 이 사건 토지 5,263 ㉠ 115 하천제방의 법면 ㉡ 326 자전거와 보행자도로 및 교량 ㉢ 7 하천제방의 법면 ㉣ 112 하천 ㉤ 2 하천제방의 법면 ㉥ 60 수문 ㉦ 322 둔치 ㉧ 5 보행자도로 ㉨ 90 하천제방의 법면 ㉩ 168 둔치 ㉪ 16 보행자도로 ㉫ 125 하천제방의 법면 ㉬ 3,253 하천 ㉭ 150 하천제방의 법면 ㉠’ 47 보행자도로 ㉡’ 453 둔치 ㉢’ 12 자전거 및 보행자도로

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the survey and appraisal conducted against non-party No. 2 by the appraiser of this court, the mining name market of this court, the head of Seoul Regional Construction and Management, the Director of the National Archives Management, the Director of the National Recording Office, and the Director of the Military Archives Branch of Suwon District Court, the result

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, who suffered from the assessment of the assessment land of this case, are the same person, and the plaintiffs acquired the ownership of the land of this case, which corresponds to the assessment land of this case from Nonparty 1. Since the land of this case was incorporated into Ansan-cheon, a national river, from January 1, 1962 to December 31, 1984, which is the enforcement date of the River Act (Act No. 892) from January 1, 1962 to December 31, 1984, which is the enforcement date of the River Act (Act No. 3782), the defendant is obligated to pay the compensation for losses to

2) Summary of the defendant's assertion

A) Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, the title of the assessment of the instant assessment land, cannot be readily concluded to be the same person. It cannot be deemed that the instant land was incorporated into a river area or the time of incorporation cannot be specified and thus constitutes the subject of compensation under the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land incorporated into River (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

B) Even if it is not so, the Republic of Korea (the Joseon General) has occupied the land of this case as the owner’s intention and openly from around 1932 to around 1934, which was completed with the construction of the shores and Postal affairs in Ansan, the Republic of Korea (the Joseon General prior to the Sea) from around 1932 to around 1934. Thus, it shall be deemed that the statute of limitations for the possession of the land of this case was completed on December 31, 1954 when 20 years elapsed since the date of completion of the above construction, and the plaintiffs cannot claim compensation for damages to the defendant

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Whether to be compensated for special measures

1) Whether the plaintiffs are the same person with the prior representation and the personal identity of the plaintiffs

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 7, and the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding on the light-finding market, the whole purport of the pleadings can be seen as follows: ① The plaintiffs' names are the same as "non-party 1", which is the plaintiffs' names and the situation of the land of this case; ② The address of non-party 1, who is the circumstance name, is Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, the legal domicile of the plaintiffs' counter-party 1, and ③ The legal domicile of non-party 1, who is the circumstance name, is also the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, where non-party 1 living in the above situation at the time of the situation, there is no other person than the plaintiffs' names except the non-party 1, the counter-party 1 and the plaintiffs' counter-party 1, the counter-party 1, the same person, barring special circumstances.

(ii) whether and when the river area was incorporated;

In accordance with Article 2 of the River Act, which was enacted by Ordinance No. 1255 of April 1, 1963, 1963, the land of this case was designated as a national river. The land of this case was located within the river section of Ansancheon river. ② The land of this case was determined and publicly announced as the river area of Ansancheon river pursuant to Article 897 of the Construction Division Notification No. 897 of Jun. 1, 1964, and was owned by the State under Article 4 of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 197). ③ The land of this case on the river register prepared after around 1977 was designated as a national river area of Ansancheon river under the Act on Special Measures for Construction. According to each of the above facts, according to each of the above facts, the land of this case constitutes a land subject to compensation under Article 4 of the former River Act.

D. Judgment on the defense of the defendant's acquisition by prescription

1) Relevant legal principles

If the nature of the source of right to possess real estate is not clear, the possessor is presumed to possess real estate in good faith, in a peaceful and public performance manner pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Such presumption applies likewise to cases where the State or a local government occupies real estate, which is the managing body of the cadastral record, with the knowledge of the absence of legal requirements such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, and without the knowledge of the absence of such legal requirements, barring special circumstances, the possessor shall be deemed to have rejected another’s ownership and has no intention to occupy it. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intention to own shall be deemed to have been broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625, Aug. 21, 1997). Meanwhile, even if the State or a local government fails to submit documents concerning the procedure for the acquisition of land for acquisition of the prescriptive acquisition, it cannot be readily determined that the State or a local government has occupied the land without permission and its intention to acquire it.

2) Completion of acquisition by prescription

The Do governor, who was delegated by the Do governor, was performing the construction of a festival and a floodgate, etc. on or around 1932 to 1934 on the basis of the Joseon River Order. The land of this case constitutes a bank site, floodgate, high water site, reservoir, etc. on or around March 31, 1936, and the land of this case was owned by the 10th anniversary of the 193th anniversary of the 1935th public notice of the 19th public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 2nd public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 2nd public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 2nd public announcement of the 10th public announcement of the 19th public announcement of the 1th public announcement of the 3th public announcement of this case.

(iii) the re-claim of the possession of another owner.

The plaintiffs asserted that the Republic of Korea occupied the land of this case without permission. ① The remaining cadastral records except for intellectual source do not exist due to unknown causes. However, as long as the possibility that the remaining cadastral records were lost due to the disturbance before June 25, 200 cannot be ruled out, it cannot be readily concluded that the Republic of Korea occupied the above land without permission merely because the defendant was unable to submit documents on the acquisition procedure of the above land. ② The plaintiffs and their fleet did not appear to have not raised any objection against the acquisition of the land of this case, such as the acquisition of the land of this case, ex officio or before the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Republic of Korea was completed. Furthermore, considering the fact that there seems to have been no objection against the acquisition of the land of this case, it is difficult to view that the above disposal of the land of this case was the acquisition of the land of this case without permission by the Do governor, in view of the fact that the land of this case was newly registered in the land cadastre or the acquisition of the ownership of the river of this case, it is difficult to legally designate the river ownership of this case and to be included in the river area.

Therefore, even though the defendant did not submit the documents concerning the procedure for acquiring the land of this case, the presumption of possession with respect to the land of this case cannot be reversed solely for such reasons.

4) Sub-determination

In the case of the acquisition by prescription, the ownership is acquired by registering under Article 245(1) of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 471 of Feb. 22, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the "former Civil Act"). According to Article 471 of the Addenda to the former Civil Act, Article 10(1) and (3) of the Addenda to the former Civil Act, even in the case of the acquisition of real rights due to the completion of prescription prior to the enforcement date of the former Civil Act, the validity shall expire unless it is registered within three years from the enforcement date of this Act. However, unless there is no evidence to prove that the Republic of Korea completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case, regardless of the completion of the acquisition by prescription, the plaintiffs still owned the land prior to the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and the Republic of Korea has only the plaintiffs' right to claim ownership transfer against the fleet.

However, upon the completion of the prescriptive acquisition of real estate, the possessor may file a claim against the nominal owner for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, and the nominal owner is obligated to comply with this, so the nominal owner cannot exercise his/her right based on the ownership against the possessor for whom the prescriptive acquisition has been completed (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da51280, May 25, 1993; 94Da13480, June 9, 1995), and even if the plaintiffs' right to claim compensation based on the land was established against the prior owner, the plaintiffs' right to claim compensation against the Republic of Korea at the time cannot exercise the above right to claim compensation based on the ownership against the defendant who occupies and manages the land of this case upon delegation from the Republic of Korea. Thus, the defendant's aforementioned defense has merit.

E. Judgment on the plaintiffs' second defense

In this regard, the plaintiffs asserted that it violates the good faith principle against the intent of the Act on Special Measures, even though the Republic of Korea enacted special measures in consideration of the anti-discrimination on the fact that the compensation provision for loss of ownership was not completely prepared even though the state-owned land was unilaterally nationalized by the State-owned state principle, claiming the extinction of the claim for compensation for loss on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations for acquisition by possession against the plaintiffs

However, the principle of trust and good faith is an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship should not exercise rights or perform obligations in a way that violates the principle of trust and good faith by taking into account the other party's interest. In order to deny the exercise of such rights on the ground that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, there should be a good faith provided to the other party, or the other party should be objectively regarded as having good faith, and the exercise of rights against the other party's trust should not be acceptable in light of the concept of justice (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da2390, 2406, Apr. 22, 2003). Since the acquisition by prescription of the Republic of Korea on the land of this case has already been completed on December 31, 1954 and thus it is impossible to exercise the rights based on ownership against the defendant of the plaintiffs, even if it was enacted to relieve the owner of a river incorporated into Korea due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, it is difficult to see that the plaintiffs or the new one has granted such rights.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)

(1) ① (1) A river of 667 square meters (number 5 omitted); ② a river of 84 square meters (number 6 omitted); ③ a river of 706 square meters (number 7 omitted); ④ a river of 63,90 square meters (number 8 omitted); ⑤ a river of 40,407 square meters (number 9 omitted); ⑤ a river of 29,757 square meters (number 10 omitted); ⑤ a river of 36,658 square meters (number 11 omitted); ② a river of 36,658 square meters (number 12 omitted); ② a river of 36,186 square meters (number 13 omitted); and (9) a river of 1,451 square meters (number 13 omitted); and (10) a river of 43,241 square meters (number 14 omitted)