[1] Where the property devolving upon the State becomes State property from January 1, 1965 under the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, whether the possession of the property devolving upon the State naturally is converted from the possession of the property to the possession of the other State (negative), and the standard for determining whether the property devolving upon the State is owned or not

[2] In a case where it is proved that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission knowing the existence of such legal act or any other legal requirements which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of commencement of possession without permission, whether the presumption of possession with intention to hold it shall be reversed (affirmative)

[1] The possession of the property devolving upon the State under the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State shall be deemed to fall under the possession of the property devolving upon the nature of the title. However, according to 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 former Act, since the property devolving upon the State whose sales contract was not concluded by the end of December 1, 1964 is stipulated to be state-owned free of charge, it is possible to possess the property devolving upon the State from January 1, 1965 as state-owned property and thereafter possess it with the intention of ownership. However, even in this case, the possession of the property devolving upon the State shall not be automatically converted from the possession to the possession with the intention of possession from the other State-owned property. The existence of the ownership shall be determined externally and objectively by the nature

[2] In a case where it is proved that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission knowing the existence of such legal act or any other legal requirements which may constitute the cause of the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession without permission, the presumption of possession without permission shall be reversed, barring any special circumstances.

[1] 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 the State (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963); Article 5 of the Addenda / [2] Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da4075 delivered on March 12, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1240), Supreme Court Decision 94Da41805 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1331), Supreme Court Decision 94Da505, 50601 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2321 delivered on November 29, 1996), Supreme Court Decision 95Da54204 delivered on November 29, 197 (Gong1997Sang, 162), Supreme Court Decision 96Da51875 delivered on March 28, 1997 (Gong197, 1997Sang, 298Da19895 delivered on May 29, 197)

Plaintiff

Korea

Changwon District Court Decision 99Na49 delivered on August 20, 1999

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

1. The possession of the property devolving upon the State under the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State shall be deemed to fall under the possession of the property devolving upon the nature of its title. However, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Act and Article 5 of the Addenda stipulate that the property devolving upon the State shall be State free of charge until the end of December 1964. Thus, the property devolving upon the State shall be deemed to be State property from January 1, 1965 and thereafter possess it at the will of its owner (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da51875 delivered on March 28, 197). However, the possession of the property devolving upon the State shall not be deemed to fall under the possession of the property devolving upon the State as a matter of course from that time to time. In this case, the existence of the owner shall be determined externally and objectively by the nature of the title which was the cause of the acquisition of the property devolving to the State, or by all circumstances related to the possession, unless otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal No. 2975Da1984, supra.

However, according to the facts found by the court below in this case, on March 23, 1962, the plaintiff purchased the land of this case ( Address No. 1,197 square meters) which is the property devolving upon the non-party from the non-party, and cultivated and occupied it from that time until that time, and even if the land was not disposed of to the non-party due to the relation to the property devolving upon the non-party, it cannot be recognized that the plaintiff knowingly purchased it. Accordingly, if the facts are identical, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case without permission knowing that it did not meet the legal requirements without any legal act or other legal requirements which could constitute the ground for acquiring the ownership, and there is no other circumstance to deem that the presumption of autonomous possession was reversed. Thus, the plaintiff's possession of the land of this case shall be deemed to constitute an autonomous possession from January 1, 1965, which was the land under the Act on Special Measures.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The court below is justified in holding that the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on July 19, 1980 with respect to the land of this case in the name of the defendant, and that the plaintiff served as a vice-section of the ○○○ in Jin-si, the land of this case before and after that time, the plaintiff served as the vice-section of the ○○○○ in Jin-si, the land of this case, but the entrusted affairs of the above registration were directly handled by Jin-gun, the competent authority, and the plaintiff was not involved in the business, and even if the plaintiff knew of the fact that the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of the defendant, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to be converted into the possession of the owner, and there is no

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)