Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (Attorney Jin-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appointed party-appellant)

The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Doo, Attorneys Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

October 1, 2010

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2008Guhap51226 decided February 26, 2010

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and both the primary claim and the conjunctive claim against the plaintiff corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

2. The total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The purport of the claim by the plaintiff (Appointed Party)

A. In the first place, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of each indemnity as set out in No. 1 or No. 3 in the separate sheet of imposition of indemnity against the designated parties, including the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) shall be revoked.

(b) confirm, in advance, that each such disposition is null and void;

2. The defendant's purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the revocation and nullification of the disposition of imposing indemnity on each of the real estate owned by the Defendant as the Appointed Kim Nam-nam, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-hee, Lee Sang-hee, Lee Sang-hoon, Lee Sang-hoon, and the Plaintiff’s designated party. The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim (the appointed party Kim Nam, Lee Jong-chul, Lee Ho-ho, and the part on which the revocation of the disposition of imposing indemnity on this party and the confirmation of invalidity) while revoking the disposition of imposing indemnity against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not file an appeal on the part against the Plaintiff in the above judgment, and the Defendant appealed against the part against the Defendant in the judgment against the Defendant.

B. Accordingly, the scope of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the part against the Defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance (the part on which the revocation and nullification of the disposition of imposing indemnity against the appointed party, the Lee Ho-hee, the Lee Sang-hoon, and the Plaintiff).

2. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter only referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) are the owners of each relevant building indicated in the column for “building” in the attached Form 1 attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant buildings”; and individually, “the instant building (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), and (number 3 omitted).”

B. The Defendant: (a) filed a disposition with respect to the instant building (number 1 omitted); (b) KRW 8 square meters in the same (number 5 omitted) road 23.1 square meters (hereinafter “road 5 omitted”) as the road (number 5 omitted) in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul; (c) KRW 2.7 square meters in the same (number 6 omitted); and (d) the instant (number 2 omitted) in the building owned by Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul; and (d) the instant (number 6 omitted); and (e) the instant (number 3 omitted); and (e) the instant (number 3 omitted); and (e) the instant (number 6 omitted); (e) the Plaintiff, etc., who is the owner of each of the instant buildings, without permission to use or profit-making; and (e) the instant (number 2 omitted); and (e) the Plaintiff, etc., made a disposition imposing indemnity to the Plaintiff, etc., from 2003 to 308.288.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 22 (including the number of branches), and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Each of the instant buildings does not adjoin each of the above roads (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant roads”). Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions under the premise is unlawful.

Even if the buildings of this case are each of the roads of this case, each of the roads of this case is merely the category of the roads, and there was no public announcement of the designation or recognition of routes and no public announcement of the determination or public announcement of road zones under the Road Act, and thus, it is not a road under the Road Act, but a public property among administrative property.

㈎ 이 사건 각 도로가 도로법상의 도로가 아니고, 행정재산 중 공공용재산도 아님에도 불구하고, 피고가 도로법에 근거하여 이 사건 각 부과처분을 한 것은 위법하다.

㈏ 원고는 아버지인 망 소외 1이 이 사건 (지번 1 생략), (지번 2 생략) 건물을 매수한 1983. 10. 28.부터 이 사건 각 도로 중 위 각 점유부분을, 선정자 박순희, 이경훈, 이상훈은 피상속인 망 소외 2가 이 사건 (지번 3 생략) 건물을 취득한 1959. 5. 21.부터 (지번 6 생략) 도로 중 점유부분을 각 소유의 의사로 평온·공연하게 점유하여 왔고, 각 그 점유개시일로부터 20년이 지났으므로, 원고 등은 2003. 8. 1. 이전에 각 그 해당 점유부분을 시효취득하였다. 따라서, 원고 등은 이 사건 각 도로 중 이 사건 각 건물의 부지부분을 점유할 정당한 권원이 있다 할 것이므로, 이와 달리 원고 등의 위 도로에 대한 점유가 무단점유임을 전제로 한 이 사건 각 부과처분은 위법하다.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) Each of the buildings in this case covers each of the roads in this case.

The instant roads are not roads under the Road Act, but fall under the property for public use among the administrative property, and thus the site portion of each of the instant roads cannot be the subject of prescriptive acquisition.

Article 28(1) of the Road Act provides that “If each of the roads of this case does not fall under public property among the administrative property, it shall be deemed that the property under the State Property Act, the public property, and the Commodity Management Act is subject to the indemnity stipulated by each of the pertinent laws.” In accordance with the above, each of the methods of calculating the indemnity (the annual officially announced price 】05 (minimum rate of use 】 period 】 120/100).” As such, adding the State Property Act, etc. to the Act and subordinate statutes on the grounds of the instant disposition is identical to the basic facts, and is merely an addition of the relevant statutes, and thus, the instant disposition

4. Determination

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

B. Whether part of the site of each of the buildings of this case has invadedd each of the roads of this case

According to the entry and video of the evidence No. 2-1, 2, 4, and 4-1, 2-2 of the evidence No. 4-1, 5-1, 3, 6-1, 2-2, and 1, 20-1 through 5 of the evidence No. 20-2 of the evidence No. 20, it may be recognized that the building of this case (number No. 1 omitted) is 2.7 square meters out of the (number 4 omitted) road and the (number 5 omitted) road 23.1 square meters, and 2.7 square meters out of the (number 2 omitted) road of this case (number 6 omitted), and the building of this case (number 3 omitted) is 7.2 square meters out of the road (number 6 omitted), and the Plaintiff’s assertion on this issue is without merit.

C. Whether each of the instant roads constitutes an administrative property for public use

(i)Administrative property and acquisition of prescription;

㈎ 구 지방재정법(2005. 8. 4. 법률 제7663호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 지방재정법’이라 한다) 내지 구 공유재산 및 물품 관리법(2008. 12. 26. 법률 제9174호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 공유재산관리법’이라고 한다)의 ‘행정재산’이란 ‘지방자치단체가 소유하는 재산으로서 직접 공용, 공공용, 또는 기업용으로 사용하거나 사용하기로 결정한 재산’을 말하는 것이고{ 구 지방재정법 제72조 제1항 및 제2항 , 구 지방세법 시행령(2005. 12. 30. 대통령령 제19226호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제78조 제1항 제1호 , 구 공유재산관리법 제5조 제1항 및 제2항 참조}, 도로와 같은 이른바 인공적 공공용 재산은 토지의 지목이 도로이고 공유재산 대장에 등재되어 있다는 사정만으로 바로 그 토지가 행정재산에 해당한다고 할 수는 없고 공용개시행위가 있어야 행정재산이 되는 것인데, 이때 공용개시는 일반 공중의 사용에 제공한다고 하는 뜻의 의사표시로서 법령에 의하여 지정되거나 행정처분으로 공공용으로 사용하기로 결정한 경우뿐만 아니라 행정재산으로 실제로 사용하는 경우의 어느 하나에 해당하면 성립할 수 있다( 대법원 2007. 6. 1. 선고 2005도7523 판결 , 대법원 2009. 10. 15. 선고 2009다41533 판결 등 참조).

㈏ 또한, 구 지방재정법 제74조 제2항 은 ‘공유재산은 민법 제245조 의 규정에 불구하고 시효취득의 대상이 되지 아니한다. 다만, 잡종재산의 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다’고 규정하고 있고, 구 공유재산관리법 제6조 제2항 도 마찬가지로 규정하고 있으므로, 구 지방재정법 내지 구 공유재산관리법상 공유재산에 대한 취득시효가 완성되기 위하여는 그 공유재산이 시효취득의 대상이 될 수 없는 행정재산이나 보존재산이어서는 안되고, 취득시효기간 동안 계속하여 시효취득의 대상이 될 수 있는 잡종재산이어야 한다고 할 것이다( 대법원 2009. 12. 10. 선고 2006다19177 판결 등 참조).

D. In the case of this case

㈎ 이 사건 각 도로가 법령에 의하여 공용지정되거나 행정처분으로 공공용으로 사용하기로 결정(노선인정이나 도로구역 결정·고시 등) 되었다는 점을 인정할 자료는 없다.

㈏ 한편, 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나 갑 제5 내지 22호증, 을 제1 내지 6, 9 내지 13, 17 내지 21호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정을 종합해 보면, 이 사건 각 건물을 개축 또는 증축하거나 수선하면서 현재와 같은 구조물이 새로이 설치되어 이 사건 도로의 일부를 침범하게 된 것으로 보이므로(이 사건 각 건물의 최초 건축 당시부터 현재와 동일한 구조물이 설치되어 있어 현재까지 이 사건 도로 중 일부를 침범하고 있었다고 보기는 어렵다), 이 사건 각 건물이 이 사건 각 도로 중 일부를 침범하기 이전부터 이 사건 각 도로는 이미 일반인을 위한 공공에 제공되어 통행을 위한 도로로 실제로 사용됨으로써 공용개시되어 행정재산이 되었다.

① In the cadastral map drawn up on June 2, 1938, the road of this case was already marked as the road (However, in the case of land number 1 omitted) and 116, each of the road of this case is marked as the road of this case in the cadastral map drawn up on May 26, 1939, but it was divided into tugboated (land number 4 omitted) and tugboated (land number 5 omitted), and the ownership was transferred to the State on July 27, 1939, and the land category of the divided portion was changed to the road of this case on August 28, 1939), around 1967, around December 30, 1978, and each of the cadastral maps drawn up on March 13, 1984, and November 29, 2005.

② It seems that there is no particular change in the location of each of the roads of this case or in the arrangement of surrounding land, even according to the aerial photography taken in 1972, 1981, 1984, and 207.

③ Until now, all parts of the road of this case excluding the part on which each of the buildings of this case was invaded, are offered to the general public as roads.

④ Examining each of the above cadastral maps, aerial photographys, current photographs, etc., it seems impossible to have access to each of the buildings of this case without passing through each of the roads of this case to access land or neighboring land, etc. at any time.

⑤ Among each building of this case, the building of this case (number 1 omitted) was newly constructed on the registry, as it is on the registry, and its main purpose was changed from July 11, 1992 to 'house', and the building of this case (number 2 omitted) was newly constructed on the house of 8.75 square meters in 1948 and was destroyed on June 22, 1992, and was newly constructed on the house of 10 square meters, and its main purpose was changed from 'house' to ' neighborhood living facilities (retail 14 square meters)'. Considering that the building of this case (number 3 omitted) was newly constructed on the 14th square meters in the 1962 building and the 14th square meters in the 1964 building was destroyed on March 31, 1962, and its main purpose was changed to 'house neighborhood living facilities (retail 1,278 square meters in each of the instant buildings).

6. In addition, each part of the instant roads is not the main part to be used as a store among each of the instant buildings, but the lower part of the wall, which combines large glass or glass door, to the road side by extremely low height, depending on the wall surface, and thus, is cement structure in narrow narrow width. In light of its structure and function, it does not seem that a wooden building first constructed for the sake of its structure and function.

㈐ 한편, 행정재산은 공용이 폐지되지 않는 한 시효취득의 대상인 잡종재산이 될 수 없는바, 공용폐지의 의사표시는 명시적이든 묵시적이든 상관없으나 적법한 의사표시가 있어야 하고, 행정재산이 사실상 본래의 용도에 사용되지 않고 있다는 사실만으로 용도폐지의 의사표시가 있었다고 볼 수는 없다고 할 것이며, 원래의 행정재산이 공용폐지되어 시효취득의 대상이 된다는 입증책임은 시효취득을 주장하는 자에게 있다고 할 것이다( 대법원 1994. 9. 13. 선고 94다12579 판결 , 대법원 1999. 1. 15. 선고 98다49548 판결 등 참조).

As seen earlier, insofar as it is recognized that almost most of the instant roads were offered for passage of the general public and used as roads until now, it cannot be deemed that public disuse existed even if the circumstance where each of the instant roads was occupied by the construction of each of the instant roads, and part of each of the instant roads was actually obstructed, and it cannot be deemed that public disuse existed, and there is no other evidence to prove that public disuse existed. Thus, it cannot be deemed that public disuse existed with respect to part of each of the instant roads.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, since each part of the roads of this case, among the roads of this case, the part affected by each of the buildings of this case was already provided to the public for the general public prior to such invasion and was started for public use as a road, it constitutes the property for public use among the administrative property. Since each of the roads of this case, the part affected by each of the buildings of this case cannot be subject to the prescriptive acquisition, it shall be subject to the imposition of the indemnity against the Plaintiff and the designated parties who occupied the part without permission. The disposition of additional payment to the Plaintiff and the designated parties is lawful

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's main claim and ancillary claim shall be dismissed. Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is unfair, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiff's main claim and conjunctive claim shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)