[1] The case affirming the judgment below holding that in the event that a repair association, a telegraph of the Korea Rural Community Corporation, purchased a piece of land as farmland and incorporated it into a reservoir site and has been occupied until now, it is insufficient to recognize that possession of the land of the above construction has been occupied as a third party since the reservoir, including the land, was registered as an agricultural infrastructure in accordance with the Rearrangement

[2] In a case where a repair association installs a reservoir on the land which is merely a transfer and answer in nature, whether the land is subject to prescriptive acquisition (affirmative)

[1] Articles 197(1), 245 of the Civil Act, Article 2 subparag. 6, Article 16, and Article 17 of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act / [2] Article 245 of the Civil Act, Article 6(2), and Article 7(2) of the State Property Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da41759 delivered on March 9, 199

Korea Rural Community Corporation (Attorney Doh-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Korea

Jeonju District Court Decision 2009Na7055 Decided April 23, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court, as indicated in its holding, acknowledged that the instant land was farmland distributed to the Nonparty following the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that, around October 6, 1958, an Ahyan Water Cooperative, a telegraph of the Plaintiff, purchased the instant land from the Nonparty and incorporated the instant land into the site of the Ahyan Reservoir reservoir, and has been occupied until now since then. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land was as a principal possession solely on the sole basis that the reservoir, including the instant land, was registered as agricultural infrastructure pursuant to the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act. Examining in light of the relevant provisions and records of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable,

2. A natural public object that cannot be an object of prescriptive acquisition refers to the existence of an entity that can be offered to the public in the natural state as it is. Thus, if a repair association installs a reservoir on the land that was merely a dry and dry paddy field in its original state, it cannot be deemed a natural public object, and even if it was not directly provided by the State for public purposes, it does not constitute an administrative property under the State Property Act even if it was provided for the common use of the general public, and thus is subject to prescriptive acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da41759 delivered on March 9, 199).

In the same purport, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the land of this case is administrative property and cannot be acquired by prescription, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the relevant legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. In light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion on the acquisition by prescription of the registry on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's possession of the land of this case, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the relevant

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)