The ownership of land is, in principle, neglected under the upper part of the land.

Since the land ownership is, in principle, an unfashion under the upper part of the land, if the sewerage facilities are installed underground, it will have occupied the land.

Article 212 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na1096 delivered on December 22, 1971

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal:

In the reasoning explanation, the original judgment determined that the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the defendant's market occupies or manages the original land on the ground that the defendant's market has no other evidence to recognize that the defendant's market has occupied or managed the surface of the land which is the above road, even if the defendant's house installed the above sewerage facilities and the common side facilities, the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the plaintiff's possession or management of the original land is not reasonable, on the ground that most of the land was set as the road site on the city planning of the city of the defendant, and that the land was installed on the underground surface of the point line on which the original judgment attached to the original judgment was installed, and that the joint side facilities were removed after being installed on the 4th square meters of the indication of the drawings.

However, if the original land is set up in the road site on the urban planning of the defendant city and it is actually being used as a road, and if the defendant city installed the above sewerage facilities and the joint urinals, the ownership of the land is, in principle, finely under the upper part of the land. Therefore, it is difficult to deny the possession management of the original land of the defendant city, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the original judgment based on the opposite opinion is erroneous or incomplete, and it is reasonable to discuss the appeal, and it is difficult to reverse the original judgment.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet