Ministry of Prescription Acquisition of the River Site

The river site shall not be the object of acquisition by prescription unless it has been abolished.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 68Da1198 decided Aug. 30, 1968 (도요 245(1)(5)(5), 178) 73Da557 decided Apr. 12, 1974 (Residents I 245(1)(14), Canada 10651 decided Feb. 21, 192 between 482 and 52, 483729)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of First Instance (No. 4292 citizen897)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant delivered 23,070 finite land (river site) of 708 land Kim Jong-gun-gun, Ginsan-ri, Ginsan-ri 708 to the plaintiff and paid 2,80,000 finites.

The plaintiff's claim for objection is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials.

The original judgment is revoked. The defendant delivered to the plaintiff 23 of 708 land in the name of Kim Jong-gun, Kim Jong-gun, the 3,070 land and paid a gold of 50,000 dollars. The plaintiff's attorney sought a judgment that the litigation cost shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instance, and the defendant (propins)'s attorney sought a judgment of rejection of prosecution.

The method of de facto statement and evidence by both parties to the lawsuit is that the plaintiff's request for the delivery of arable land among the main claim was made by subrogation of the state in the plaintiff's legal representative, and the defendant's legal representative submitted Gap No. 4 with evidence, and the permission for possession of the river site was granted by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do with respect to the plaintiff. Thus, it is null and void, and even if the plaintiff's permission for occupation and use of the river site was legally obtained, it cannot be asserted against the defendant, the possessor, unless he was delivered. Further, the defendant cultivated the river site as the owner's intention from 25 years to 20 years, and acquired the ownership by prescription as of September 22, 4292, and acquired the ownership of the river site by prescription, and therefore, he stated that the request for delivery of arable land was unlawful, and sought a return by the witness No. 1, 2, and 3 with evidence, and cite it as at the time of the original judgment except for the part of the No. 4.

The plaintiff obtained permission from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do on April 28, 4292 to 23 of 708 to 708 to 3,070 to 3,07 the river site was reclaimed and actually cultivated, and the fact that the defendant occupied and cultivated the river site from 200 to 3,070 to 20 is no dispute between the parties, and the permission to occupy and use the river site was null and void because the permission to occupy and use the river site was not granted by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do on the river site. However, according to the testimony of the non-party 2, it is sufficient to recognize that the permission to occupy and use the river site was obtained through legitimate procedures, and it is sufficient to prove that the defendant obtained permission to occupy and use the river site from 20 to 200 to 3,070 to 3,070 to 20 to 3,000 to 20 to 4,000,0000 to 9,000,000).

Therefore, since the defendant has no authority to occupy the river site in this case, he has a duty to deliver the river site to the plaintiff subrogated by the State, and the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred by the plaintiff since he illegally occupied the river site after the short-term 4292 April 28 (the date on which the plaintiff obtained permission to occupy the river site in this case). The amount of damages is equal to the net profit accrued from the river site in this case for the first time for the first time for the first time for the second time for the first time from the river site in this case. According to the testimony of the non-party 4 of the court below, the total yield of the river site in 4292 is 60,000 won and production cost requires 20,000 won. The non-party 5 of the court below's witness non-party 5, who is contrary to the well-known recognition, did not have any influence to recognize it, and there is no difference between 00,000 won and 200,0000 gold market price per annum.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for principal action is reasonable, and it is without merit, and thus, it shall be dismissed. Since the original judgment not in conformity with it is unfair, the original judgment shall be revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act and it is so decided as per Disposition by Article 96, Article 92, and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Lee Jae-ok (Presiding Judge)