Whether the illegal occupant of any property devolvingd upon the property has acquired the right of association;

The illegal possessor who has resided in the house without the title on the property devolving upon his own property can not acquire the right of association under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to his own property.

Article 15 of the Act on Asset Disposal for Reversion

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 114 decided Sept. 18, 1959 (Supreme Court Decision 3067Da1114 decided Sep. 18, 1959; Supreme Court Decision 7Do25 decided Sept. 25, 199; Decision 15(65)126 decided Sept. 18,

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (69A2742) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 69Da2742)

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay 5,050,000 won to the plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution (Withdrawal of preliminary claim at the trial)

The new Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 366-14 large 155 square meters (hereinafter referred to as this case's land) was originally reverted property, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the defendant was absent from the State's land on November 30, 1959 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name as the Sungdong District Court No. 18189 on August 14, 1965.

The plaintiffs' legal representative asserted that since since since 1956, the plaintiffs occupied the land in question and resided in the house above it, the defendant, who did not have any right of association despite the fact that he is the plaintiffs, was the right of association under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to it, did not have the right of association, and thus, the defendant infringed the plaintiffs' right of association, and the plaintiffs could not receive the right of association and caused damages to the market price. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim was filed to seek compensation for damages to the defendant. However, the above possession of the plaintiffs' assertion is not a legitimate possession under a lease contract with the government authorities, but a illegal possession of the land in question which had been residing above the house without any title. Thus, even if the plaintiffs had occupied the land in 1956 since 1956, it does not have the right of association under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to them, so it cannot be viewed that the plaintiffs acquired the right of association on the land in question.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for the principal lawsuit on the premise that the plaintiffs are bound by the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Land is without merit, and therefore it is without merit. Accordingly, the original decision with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)