(a) The case reversing the judgment of the court below recognizing the prescriptive acquisition on the ground that there is room to regard the State property laid underground by a large sewage manager as administrative property;

(b) The burden of proving that the state property is the miscellaneous property subject to the prescriptive acquisition; and

(a) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the prescriptive acquisition of the land on the ground that, if a large sewage culvert was laid underground in part of the land which is the State property and used as a public sewerage system, it may be viewed as administrative property as the State property where a sewerage system, which is the public property, is installed, and the administrative property cannot be the subject of judicial transactions unless it is abolished, and thus, it cannot be the subject of judicial transactions, unless it is disposed

B. The burden of proving that state property is miscellaneous property subject to the prescriptive acquisition is on the part of claiming the benefit of prescription.

A. Article 245 of the Civil Act; Article 5(2) of the State Property Act; Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 93Da56220 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1314) (Gong194Sang, 1314) 93Da42658 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 195Sang), Supreme Court Decision 93Da54040 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1010) 94Da12579 delivered on September 13, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2634)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na46796 delivered on July 15, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant shall be examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the above non-party 1 did not have an obligation to register the ownership of the above land under the name of the plaintiff 1, 69 square meters on the ground that the non-party 1 was not the above 1, 354 square meters on February 17, 1960, (2 omitted), 30 square meters on (3 omitted), 40 square meters on (4 omitted), 43 square meters on (4 omitted) 43 square meters on the above land, and 92 square meters on the above land, and that the non-party 1 did not have an obligation to register the ownership of the above land under the name of the non-party 1, 69 square meters on the non-party 1, 69 square meters on the non-party 2’s land under the name of the above 9-party 1, 700 square meters on the non-party 1, 97 square meters on the above land under the name of the plaintiff 1, and 97.

2. However, according to each evidence admitted by the court below as evidence, even before the above deceased non-party 1 occupies the land in this case, it can be known that the large sewage culvert (1,200m) is laid underground and is used as a part of the public sewerage system in Seoul ( Address 7 omitted). If it is true, the land is likely to be regarded as an administrative property as a state property where a sewerage system, which is a public property, is installed, and the administrative property cannot be subject to judicial transactions unless it is closed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 69Da418, 419, 420, 93Da5620, Mar. 22, 1994).

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the defendant's above assertion is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to administrative property, and since it is clear that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

In addition, the burden of proving that the state property is a miscellaneous property subject to the prescriptive acquisition is the plaintiff who asserts the benefit of prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da42658 delivered on April 28, 1995). The court below's explanation that the defendant had the burden of proving that the state property is not subject to the prescriptive acquisition is an illegal act that has the burden of proving that the state property is not subject to the prescriptive acquisition.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the case.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)