Whether the land is an administrative property as a road merely because the land category is a road and is registered in the register of State property (negative)

The term "administrative property under the State Property Act" refers to the property owned by the State that is directly used or determined to be used for public, public, or corporate purposes (see Article 4(2) of the State Property Act). Among them, the property for artificial public purposes, such as a road, shall be an administrative property only if it is designated by a law or determined to be used for public purposes by an administrative disposition, or if it is actually used as an administrative disposition. In particular, a road shall be in the form of a road. In particular, a road shall be in the form of a road, and a road shall be determined and publicly announced, or a road zone shall be determined and publicly announced, or a road shall be constructed through a procedure prescribed by the Urban Planning Act or the Urban Redevelopment Act. Thus, it shall not be deemed an administrative property as a road.

Articles 4(2) and 5(2) of the State Property Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Attorney Kang Jin-hun, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Jeju District Court Decision 2009Na13 decided May 13, 2009

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The term "administrative property under the State Property Act" refers to the property owned by the State that is directly used or determined to be used for public, public, or corporate purposes (see Article 4(2) of the State Property Act). Among them, the property for public purposes, such as a road, is an administrative property only when it is designated by a statute or determined to be used for public purposes by an administrative disposition, or when it is actually used as an administrative disposition. In particular, a road is in the form of a road, and a road is determined and publicly announced as a route under the Road Act or a road zone is determined and publicly announced, or a road is constructed through a procedure under the Urban Planning Act or the Urban Redevelopment Act. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the land is an administrative property as a road solely on the ground that the land is classified as a road and is registered in the State property ledger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da24654, Jan. 26, 196; 9Da5432, Feb. 25, 200).

The lower court determined, based on its adopted evidence, on February 6, 1963, the following facts: “The national highway No. 191 and No. 2 of the National Highway No. 191 and the Route Designation of the National Highway No. 2 of the Jeju-si via Hansan at Jeju-si, that the route number of the national highway No. 11 was changed on January 1, 1967 by the Presidential Decree No. 2845, the route number of the national highway No. 11; the lower court determined on February 1, 1967 that the land was included in the 9,327§³ of the national highway No. 19,40 square meters on the 11 line of the Jeju-si National Highway (hereinafter referred to as “land number No. 1 omitted); the land number of the Jeju-si (hereinafter referred to as 58,199 square meters) was not indicated on the 99,000 square meters of the national highway No. 2 of the State Properties Act; the land number of the State property was not indicated 95.

However, in light of the above legal principles, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

In accordance with the facts acknowledged by the court below, the land incorporated into the National Highway No. 11 is limited to 9,327 square meters, which is part of the 9,40 square meters of the Gadong-dong, Jeju (hereinafter referred to as "land number No. 1 omitted). Thus, even though the land in this case, which falls under the part (b) and (g) of the judgment below, constitutes part of the 9,327 square meters of the 11th of the 9,440 square meters of the 11th of the 19,000 square meters of the 99,440 square meters of the 11th of the 19,000 square meters of the 11th of the 19,000 square meters of the 11th of the 19,000 square meters of the 11th of the 19,000 square meters of the 10th of the 11st of the 19,000.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which concluded that the land in the dispute of this case constitutes an administrative property that is not subject to prescriptive acquisition is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the administrative property or in finding facts without sufficient evidence and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)