[1] Whether a state-owned river site has become a miscellaneous property as a matter of course only if it is in a state where it was actually commercialized and is not offered for its original purpose (negative)

[2] The method of expressing the intention of the public abolition and the burden of proof for it

[3] Whether only a decision of urban planning facilities and a cadastral approval on land as a road can be deemed an administrative property (negative)

[1] Even if a State-owned river site is a property for public use, and part of the site is practically commercialized and not offered for its original purpose, it shall not be deemed miscellaneous property as a matter of course unless it is abolished under the State Property Act and subordinate statutes.

[2] The expression of intent to abolish the public use is neither explicitly nor implicitly, but there is a legitimate declaration of intention. The mere fact that the administrative property is not actually used for its original purpose cannot be deemed to have been the expression of intent to abolish the public use, and the burden of proving that the administrative property is the object of prescriptive acquisition is the person who asserts prescriptive acquisition.

[3] Administrative property refers to the property that the State has decided to use as the property for public use, public use, or public use within one year (Article 4(2) of the State Property Act and Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). An artificial property such as a road is an administrative property if it is designated by the Act or subordinate statutes or is decided to be used for public use as an administrative disposition, or if it is actually used as an administrative property. A road shall have the form of a road. A road shall have the form of a road. A road shall have the public announcement of the designation or approval of a road zone, the determination or public announcement of a road zone under the Road Act, or the construction of a road through a procedure under the Urban Planning Act. As such, an act of commencement for public use is limited to the determination and cadastral approval of urban planning facilities as a road, and if the land was implemented or has not been used as a natural public use, it cannot be said that the land has yet been an administrative property.

[1] Articles 4(2) and 30 of the State Property Act / [2] Articles 5(2) and 30 of the State Property Act, Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 4(2) of the State Property Act, Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da42658 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1955) Supreme Court Decision 94Da4287 delivered on November 14, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 2) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18528 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1410) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da5620 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1314), Supreme Court Decision 94Da12579 delivered on September 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 196Da3979 delivered on September 16, 197) / [39Da19697 delivered on September 197, 196

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon Tae-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korea

Busan District Court Decision 95Na8079 delivered on January 12, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below ordering the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of prescription with respect to the part of 114 square meters in total, 114 square meters as indicated in the attached drawing of the judgment below among the 354 square meters of river in Gangseo-gu, Busan ( Address 1 omitted). This part of the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the land portion of Gangseo-gu Busan ( Address 1 omitted)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, comprehensively based on the evidence of this time, found that the land category of Gangseo-gu, Busan is a river, but around 1964, Non-party 1 newly built a house on the ground and occupied and used the above land as a site for the above house. around 1973, Non-party 2 purchased a house from the above non-party 1 and succeeded to his possession, and found that the part 48 square meters in the annexed drawing of the judgment below among the above land as a site for the house, and the portion 22 square meters in the attached drawing of the judgment below as a vinyl site, the portion 3 square meters in the upper part, and the portion 41 square meters in the upper part was occupied and used as a marina and vacant lot, and the Plaintiff, his heir, from the above non-party 2's death on March 24, 199, occupied and used the above part of the land as a site for the above house to the present day, and found the land to be owned and used as a site owner 981.

However, even if the State-owned river site is a property for public use and its original purpose is not offered, it cannot be deemed as miscellaneous property as a matter of course unless it disuse under the State Property Act and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 68Da2165, Jun. 24, 1969; 72Da1346, Oct. 31, 1972; 92Nu18528, Apr. 13, 1993; 94Da42877, Nov. 14, 1994; 97Da19497, Nov. 14, 1994). In such a case, it cannot be deemed that the court below’s expression of intention of public use is difficult to conclude that the above public property was not used for the original purpose or its original purpose, and it cannot be deemed that there was an express declaration of intention of abolition, i.e., the remaining part of the land subject to extinctive prescription for 1947Da19794.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the land portion of Gangseo-gu Busan ( Address 2 omitted)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above public property such as the above public property refers to the property determined to be used or determined to be used as the property for public use, public use, or corporate property within one year (Article 4(2) of the State Property Act and Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) and the above public property such as roads shall constitute an administrative property if it is actually used as an administrative disposition or if it is determined to be an administrative disposition under the Acts and subordinate statutes. The roads shall have the form of the roads, and the public announcement of the designation or approval of the road zone and the public announcement of the road zone shall have been made from the time when the above public announcement was made, or from the time when the above public announcement was made, to the time when the urban planning project was installed as a road and the cadastral approval of the above public property as a 9-19-1000 square meters of the above public site, and thus, it cannot be said that the above public announcement of the 29-19-197 square meters of the land cadastral address of this case.

According to the records, the fact-finding of the court below is lawful and there is no error in law, and the judgment of the court below based on this is just in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the existing Supreme Court decisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da12579, Sept. 13, 1994; 94Da18195, Feb. 24, 1995; 94Da40505, Oct. 12, 1995; 95Da7369, Mar. 12, 1996; 95Da7369, Mar. 12, 1996). There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of scheduled public goods as pointed out. The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below ordering the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of acquisition by prescription with respect to the portion of the attached drawing 114 square meters in the Busan Gangseo-gu (No. 1 omitted), Busan (No. 354 square meters) river, shall be reversed. This part of the case shall be remanded to the court below, while the defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of this part shall be assessed against the losing party'

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)