A. Whether the effect of the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality is against a general case instituted after the decision of unconstitutionality is made

B. Whether the property owned by a profit-making corporation in Japanese possession belongs to the property

(c) Whether only the fact that a contract for State property loan was concluded after the lapse of the period of prescription for the acquisition of possession and the proposal for the purchase was made can be deemed to have waived the prescription benefit regardless of the possession by the owner;

A. The Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality extends to a case where the pertinent law or provision of the law becomes the premise of a trial after the decision becomes final and conclusive.

B. Article 2(3) of the Act on the Reversion Property Management provides that a profit-making corporation owned by a Japanese person shall be deemed to have reverted to the stocks or shares. Thus, the real estate owned by a profit-making corporation owned by a Japanese person shall be excluded from the reverted property

C. If a person has occupied the State’s land in a peaceful manner for more than 20 years, such possession is presumed to be an independent possession. Moreover, it is difficult to recognize that the possession during the above period is an exclusive possession or a waiver of the statute of limitations interest solely on the sole basis of concluding a loan agreement on the State’s land and suggesting its purchase.

Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act, Article 2(3) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 184 and Article 245 of the Civil Act

A.C. Supreme Court Decision 93Da30013 delivered on November 26, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 196). Supreme Court Decision 90Da8176 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,640), Supreme Court Decision 93Da23572 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 277), Supreme Court Decision 93Da58295 delivered on February 22, 1994 (Gong1994, 1087). Supreme Court Decision 80Da769 delivered on June 9, 198 (Gong1981, 13989), Supreme Court Decision 86Da804 delivered on September 24, 1986 (Gong194, 194; 193Da39899 delivered on September 13, 1996).

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na1816 delivered on April 1, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

Since the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality has been established in the case of this case brought before the court on the ground that the pertinent law or provision was the premise of a trial after the decision was made, it is clear that there is no reason to argue on the premise of objection.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

Article 2(3) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State (the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State at the time of original adjudication) provides that the stocks or shares shall be deemed to have been reverted to a profit-making corporation owned by Japan. Thus, it is a established case where the party members established to exclude the real estate property belonging to a profit-making corporation owned by Japan from the property belonging to the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu804, Sept. 9, 1986; 80Da769, Jun. 9, 1

The court below determined that the plaintiffs occupied each of the pertinent lands of this case from December 31, 1957, which was the starting date of possession, on the premise that the land owned by a limited partnership company was not the property devolving upon it. In light of the above legal principles and the evidence employed by the court below compared with records, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit, in the judgment of the court below. There is no reason to discuss.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

As acknowledged by the court below, if the plaintiffs have occupied each of the lands of this case owned by the defendant in a public performance for a period of more than 20 years, such possession shall be presumed to be an autonomous possession. Since it is difficult for the plaintiffs to recognize that the possession during the above period is the possession by the owner or the waiver of the prescription benefits solely on the fact that they concluded a loan agreement on State-owned property with respect to each of the above lands and proposed their purchase, it shall be difficult to recognize that the possession during the above period is in possession by the owner or the waiver of the prescription benefits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da29825, Nov. 24, 192; 93Da3013, Nov. 26, 1993). The judgment below to the same purport

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)