Whether the acquisition of ownership by the non-existence of the property devolving upon the State constitutes “acquisition of a real right to real estate under the provisions of law” as stipulated in Article 187 of the Civil Act (negative)

Article 187 of the Civil Act

Han-sik (Attorney Park Byung-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Kim Tae-tae

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1827 delivered on June 14, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

In the judgment of the court below, the decision that "acquisition of ownership" due to the denial of reversion of the original judgment does not constitute the acquisition of real rights to real estate under the provisions of Acts as referred to in Article 187 of the Civil Act is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles. Thus, the argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Red Corkhion of Kimchi