Whether a claim for prescriptive acquisition includes a claim that a landowner renounces his/her exclusive and exclusive right to use, or whether a claim that a local government acquired an exclusive and exclusive right by custom.

The assertion of the prescriptive acquisition of ownership by a local government cannot be deemed to include the assertion that the local government already renounced the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land by granting the land owner the right to passage to the general public prior to the commencement of packing works or sewerage works on the land, or that the local government acquired the right to use and benefit from the land in accordance with custom or the special area stipulated in Article 302 of the Civil Act by prescription.

Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 245(1), 741, 294, and 302 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Jeong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Na3986 delivered on June 3, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party company's ownership was acquired on March 26, 1940 or March 26, 1941, the non-party company's land five parcels of land, and the non-party company's ownership was newly constructed on March 3, 1989, the non-party company's construction of the remaining mar basin for the convenience of the Gun residents. The non-party company's construction of the roads including the land of this case, and the non-party company's construction of the above mar basin for the non-party company's use of the above 1940 or 1941. The non-party company's construction of the above 8mar road and the non-party company's construction of the above mar road's construction site's 9mar and the non-party company's construction of the above mark road's construction site's construction site's 1mark or 2mark's construction site'.

In addition, the defendant's assertion on the prescriptive acquisition of the above ownership can not be deemed to include the defendant's assertion that the non-party company or the plaintiff already given the right to pass to the general public as a road between the Seo-Eup and the Southern-si, and thus giving up the exclusive and exclusive right to use the land of this case. In addition, it is difficult to conclude that the non-party company renounced the right to benefit from the credit of the land of this case only by the facts recognized by the court below or the evidence employed by the court below. Further, the defendant's assertion on the prescriptive acquisition of the above ownership can not be deemed to include the defendant's assertion on the prescriptive acquisition of the right to benefit from the land of this case, such as the prescriptive acquisition of the right

The judgment of the court below is without merit, since it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the denial of judgment, incomplete deliberation, violation of the rules of evidence, etc. or the return of unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)