(a) The nature of possession of the property devolvingd;

(b) The time of conversion into possession frequently, in case where it has purchased and occupied any reverted property not sold until December 31, 1964; and

(a) The possession of any property devolving upon the State shall be deemed the possession on the State in view of the nature of its title;

B. According to Article 5 of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to State (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963), since the property devolving upon State, which was not concluded by the last day of December 1964, is stipulated to be State-owned free of charge, the property devolving upon State-owned property not sold by the same day shall be deemed State-owned property from January 1, 1965, and therefore, if the property devolving upon State-owned property was purchased and occupied by purchasing and occupying the land which is the property devolving upon State-owned property, the possession of the land shall be reverted to State-owned property

(a)Article 245(1)(a) of the Civil Code; Article 4 and Article 22(b) of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State; Article 5 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State (No. 1346, May 29, 196

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Plaintiff

Korea

Jeonju District Court Decision 92Na5174 delivered on April 15, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the court below cannot be said to have misunderstanding of legal principles as to the failure to conduct deliberation or possession, such as the theory of lawsuit, although the court below recognized the facts in relation to the possession of the land

Even if possession of property devolving upon the nature of title constitutes possession of property devolving upon the State, according to Article 5 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963), since Article 5 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State stipulates that property devolving upon the State shall be State free of charge until the end of December 1964, property devolving upon the State from January 1, 1965, which has not been sold until the same date. Therefore, if the property devolving upon the State has purchased and occupied the land, from January 1, 1965, the possession of the land shall be reverted to the State as the State property. As determined by the court below, it is correct that the land of this case, the deceased non-party, who is the deceased non-party, purchased the land of this case, cultivated it into dry field and managed the grave of this case, and as the remaining part has been donated to the Plaintiff, it shall be restored to the Plaintiff's possession of the remaining part of the State property.

As in the novel theory, the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the instant land in the name of the Defendant on December 28, 1970, and thereafter, the Plaintiff occupied the said land with the knowledge that it was owned by the State, but for such reason, the said possession by the Plaintiff is not deemed to be the possession of the land.

Although the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality has not been requested to the Constitutional Court for adjudication on unconstitutionality of the same kind before the Constitutional Court made a request for adjudication on unconstitutionality of the same kind, or to the court for adjudication on unconstitutionality of the same kind of case, it is reasonable to view that the relevant law or provision of the law has not only the case pending in the court, but also the general case instituted for the same reason after the decision of unconstitutionality has been made, since the court below's decision to the same purport is correct, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)