Attached List of Plaintiffs and Appellants (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do (Attorney above-at-law)

October 1, 2013

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap257 Decided May 2, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay each of the plaintiffs as stated in the list of "the plaintiff's shares in inheritance and the amount of inheritance" in the attached list of "the plaintiff's shares in inheritance and the amount of inheritance" list of the same list with 20% interest per annum from the day after the copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case is served to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following part of the order to pay is revoked. The defendant shall pay each of the plaintiffs stated in the list of "Plaintiffs" in the list of "Plaintiffs' shares in inheritance and inheritance amount table" in attached Form 1 to pay the amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the petition of appeal of this case to the day of complete

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment of the court concerning this case is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding any supplementary judgment below, and thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Unless there are special circumstances, the presumption of autonomous possession by the State is broken, barring special circumstances, where the cadastral record of each of the instant lands is preserved without being destroyed and the fact of ownership acquisition by the State in the cadastral record is not indicated in the cadastral record. A certified copy of the register of each of the instant lands is preserved without being destroyed or lost. At the time of the State’s commencement of possession and use of each of the instant lands, the fact that the Republic of Korea established the registry of each of the instant lands through donation or sale and purchase at the time of the construction of the bank. While the land without a certified copy of the register of each of the instant lands, the land without a certified copy of the register of each of the instant lands, such as each of the instant lands, was not prepared by the certified registry of the registry of the Republic of Korea, but remains without being registered without being registered from the beginning because the land at the time of the bank construction, which had not been recorded in the register of the registry of the Republic of Korea, was incorporated into the bank construction site without being bound to obtain the ownership of each of the instant lands.

B. Determination

1) Even if the State or a local government is unable to submit documents concerning the procedure for acquiring the land for which the completion of the prescriptive acquisition is claimed, it cannot be readily concluded that the State or a local government occupied the land with the knowledge that the cadastral record, etc. was lost in the column of 6.25 days or did not exist due to other reasons. In light of the circumstance and purpose of occupation, if the State or a local government appears that the possibility that the State or a local government lawfully acquired the ownership of the land for public purposes at the time of the commencement of occupation can not be ruled out, it is difficult to view that the State or a local government has proved that it occupied the land without permission, even if it is difficult to deem that the State or a local government occupied the land with the knowledge of such circumstance without the legal requirements for acquiring the ownership, the presumption of autonomous possession of the land cannot be reversed solely on the ground that the State or a local government did not submit documents concerning the procedure for acquiring the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da22976, Jul. 23, 2009).

2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, according to the results of a fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the public health stand, the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the land of this case, and the purport of the entire pleadings, there seems to be no official record, such as land cadastre and registry, at the time of incorporation of each land of this case. However, the mere fact that there is no official record on each land of this case cannot be readily concluded that the State occupied each land of this case without permission despite the existence of separate owners of each land of this case, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the court of first instance as lawful recognition, i.e., the transfer of each land of this case to the land of this case as the site of the bank constructed by the court of first instance on 1941, and the Defendant, a local government, managed the land of this case after the sunset, and the process of acquiring each of the land of this case, which was purchased by the State in 1939 and 1942, and the compensation provisions for damages incurred to the owner of the land of this case, it cannot be ruled out lawfully by the Plaintiff 1’s possession of each land of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Sung-gu (Presiding Judge)