beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Jeju District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The local government or the State fails to submit documents concerning the procedure for acquiring the land for which the completion of acquisition by prescription is claimed;
Even in cases where the State or a local government appears to be unable to exclude the possibility that the State or the local government lawfully acquired the ownership by undergoing the procedure for acquiring public property at the time of the commencement of possession, taking into account the developments leading up to the occupancy, use, etc., it is difficult to deem that the State or the local government has proved that it was occupied without permission by being aware of such circumstances without any legal requirements for the acquisition of ownership, and thus, the presumption of possession with autonomy is not broken off (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da33866, Aug. 19, 2010). Upon the completion of the acquisition by prescription, the occupant may claim against the nominal owner for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and the nominal owner is obliged to comply therewith. Thus, even if the possessor fails to acquire the ownership by failing to complete the registration of ownership transfer under
(2) On May 25, 1993, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the acquisition by prescription was completed, while the Defendant cannot be deemed as acquiring by prescription shares equivalent to the 1,219 square meters of land among each of the instant land, and ordered the Defendant to return unjust enrichment due to possession without any legal ground. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the acquisition by prescription was completed, on the ground that the Defendant did not have obtained by prescription the ownership equivalent to the 1,219 square meters of land among each of the instant land.
3. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept in the following respect.
The judgment below
The reasons and records are examined.