[1] Whether the land constitutes administrative property solely on the ground that the property for public use becomes administrative property and its category is a road and is registered in the State Property Register

[2] The elements for recognizing the prescriptive acquisition of part of the land

[1] Since an artificial property, such as a road, is designated by a law, is determined to be used for a public purpose by an administrative disposition, or is to be used as an administrative property, it shall constitute an administrative property. Thus, just because the land category is a road and is registered in the State Property Register, it cannot be determined as an administrative property as a road.

[2] In a case where there exists an objective requisition sufficient to recognize that part of one parcel of land is possessed by prescription acquisitor because it is separated from another part, and there exists an objective requisition that it is possessed by prescription acquisitor, the prescriptive acquisition for that part may be recognized.

[1] Article 4 of the State Property Act / [2] Article 245 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da18195 delivered on February 24, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1417), Supreme Court Decision 94Da6082 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1971), Supreme Court Decision 93Da44395 delivered on September 5, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3343) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 74Da1877 delivered on June 24, 197 (Gong1975, 8581) (Gong1989, 1989), Supreme Court Decision 88Da9494 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong1989, 814), Supreme Court Decision 93Da53954 delivered on December 14, 1993 (Gong539515 delivered on December 14, 1993)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na10821 delivered on April 28, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the land owned by the state should be determined on the basis of the whole land of the relevant parcel, and based on macro evidence, most of the land used as a road used for passage of neighboring residents in Seongbuk-gu Seoul (Road 1 omitted) road from the Japanese colonial era to the road used for the passage of neighboring residents, and is currently used as a road for the use of bus, etc. by neighboring residents without distinction between the roadway and India and India, and it is used as a road for the use of the road for the use of the bus, etc. by neighboring residents, and the defendant from the date of non-date to register the land in this case as a state-owned land and manages it by the method of repairing or improving it at the present time after it was registered as a state-owned land in the State-owned property management ledger. However, even if the defendant did not go through the public announcement of recognition of routes by the Road Act, or the determination procedure of the road zone, as long as most of the land in this case is actually provided for public use, the court below rejected the plaintiff's allegation that the prescriptive acquisition period of this case No.

However, given that an artificial property such as a road is an administrative property designated by a law or determined to be used for a public purpose as an administrative disposition, or a case where it is actually used as an administrative property, it cannot be determined as an administrative property on the sole ground that the land category is a road and is registered in the State Property Register (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da18195, Feb. 24, 1995; 94Da6082, Apr. 28, 1995; 94Da6082, Apr. 28, 1995; 94Da6082, Apr. 28, 1995; 93Da581, Dec. 14, 1993).

However, according to the facts duly admitted by the court below, on February 13, 1942, the non-party 1 completed the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the plaintiff's land and the building above the building site of this case (the building site of this case was extended to 19 square meters around Jun. 20, 1949) located in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul ( Address 2 omitted), 73 square meters adjacent thereto (hereinafter "the plaintiff's land of this case"), 10 square meters, and 12 square meters on the ground of the land of this case, and the land of this case and the building of this case (the building site of this case was extended to 19 square meters around Oct. 14, 1976). The non-party 1 purchased the land of this case on Oct. 14, 1976 and owned it until the date. The defendant registered the land category as the owner on Dec. 30, 195, and did not actually complete the registration of preservation of ownership as the road of this case.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the land of this case, which was not actually being used as a road at the time the plaintiff's possession commenced, is not subject to the prescriptive acquisition, because the court below did not examine whether the defendant had gone through a public announcement of the recognition of routes or a road zone determination procedure for the land of this case without examining whether the defendant had gone through a road route approval procedure under the Road Act, and the majority of the land of this case is actually being provided as a public road for public use. The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion by misunderstanding the legal principles on the recognition of administrative property under the State Property Act

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)