A. The point of time when the possession of the property devolving upon the State (=the other possession) and the property devolving upon the State which was not sold until December 31, 1964 has been purchased from that time and has been occupied (=the time when the property is converted into the possession with the intention to own)

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which rejected the claim for the completion of the acquisition by prescription on January 1, 1975 on the ground that the real estate, which is the property devolving upon ownership, is not recognized as possession independently from December 31, 1954, on the ground that there was an error of law in the incomplete hearing not regarding whether the property devolving upon ownership was occupied independently for 20 years from January 1, 1965 to 20 years;

A. 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 source of authority, but the property devolving upon the State whose contract was not concluded by the end of December 1964 pursuant 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 on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State shall be deemed to fall under the possession of the property devolving to the State, and if

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which rejected the claim for the completion of the acquisition by prescription from January 1, 1975 on the ground that the real estate, which is the property devolving upon ownership, is not recognized as possession independently from December 31, 1954, on the ground that there was an error of law in the incomplete hearing on the ground that it did not look at whether the property devolving upon ownership has occupied independently for 20 years from January 1, 1965

Article 245 of the Civil Act; Articles 4 and 22 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction; 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); Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da24779 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1992,289) (Gong1992,1031 delivered on February 14, 1992) 92Da41955 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong193,441)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 92Na5446 delivered on May 27, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul Civil District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

1. (No. 1 omitted) 108 square meters were owned by Dongyang-type Co., Ltd., a Japanese government on November 25, 1913, which was originally owned by the Plaintiff on the ground of No. 1 and No. 2, 1945, and the ownership of the said real estate was acquired by Joseon-gun Co., Ltd. (No. 33) under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Government of the Republic of Korea (No. 9, the title of the said real estate was transferred to the Government of the Republic of Korea on the ground of No. 1 and No. 2, No. 96, the title of the said real estate was transferred to the Government of the Republic of Korea on the ground of No. 1 and no. 96, the title of the said real estate was transferred to the Government of the Republic of Korea on the ground of No. 1 and no. 96, the title of the said real estate was transferred to the Government of the Republic of Korea on the ground of No. 1 and No. 31.

2. Although 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 another owner in the nature of its title. However, since Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the 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 Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property belonging to the State, the property devolving upon the State has not been concluded by the last day of December 1, 1964 shall be deemed to be the State property from January 1, 1965, if the State property belonging to the State has been purchased and has been occupied, it shall be deemed to be the possession of the property independently from January 1, 1965 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8Da24622 of Jan. 12, 190; 90Da291397, Feb. 14, 1992).

3. If the facts are as determined by the court below, even if the possession of the real estate of this case by the deceased non-party and the plaintiff should be deemed as possession of the real estate of this case before December 31, 1964, it shall be deemed that the possession of the real estate of this case was changed into possession with the intention to own the real estate of this case from January 1, 1965. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion as to the acquisition of ownership of real estate due to possession, on the ground that the plaintiff's possession of the real estate of this case from December 31, 1954 was not recognized as the commencement of possession of the real estate of this case with the intention to own it from January 1, 1965, and it should have deliberated and judged as to whether the plaintiff's assertion as to the acquisition of ownership due to possession of the real estate of this case was based on the intention of ownership between 20 years and 20 years. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition of ownership of this case.

4. 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 participating Justices.