Whether State property is subject to prescriptive acquisition or not;

Article 5(2) of the State Property Act that the State property shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition shall only apply after it was enacted, promulgated, and enforced by Act No. 2950 on December 31, 1976, and even if it was previously made, land, the public use of which was abolished for administrative purposes, shall be subject to prescriptive acquisition.

Article 5(2) of the State Property Act, Article 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1198 Decided August 30, 1968

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea law shall be the Minister of Justice of Kim Young-tae, Lee Jong-tae, Lee Jong-tae

Defendant 1 and three others, attorneys Lee Young-soo and Park Young-do, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 78Na586 delivered on April 20, 1979

Of the judgment of the court below, the part against Defendant 1 regarding the land listed in the annexed list 6 through 9, the part against Defendant 2 regarding the land listed in the annexed list 1, and the part against Defendant 4, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The appeals by Defendant 3 and other appeals by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are dismissed, respectively.

The costs of appeal by Defendant 3 and the costs of appeal by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are assessed against each of the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant 1 to 3 and the grounds of appeal by the defendant 4 concerning the prescriptive acquisition among the grounds of appeal by the defendant 1 to 3 are examined.

According to the original judgment, Defendant 2, from September 12, 1962 to August 5, 1965, as to the land of this case, Defendant 1, from August 5, 1965, as to the land of this case, Defendant 4, from August 5, 1965 to August 5, 1965, continued to acquire possession of each of the above land from December 8, 1961 to the intention of ownership transfer registration; thus, Defendant 2, an agent, etc., who acquired the above land by prescription on the date ten years have elapsed since each of the above rights transfer registration was completed, the court below rejected the above defense on the ground that even if the Defendants completed the above registration and continued to hold possession, the state property

However, Article 5(2) of the State Property Act that the State property shall not be subject to prescriptive acquisition applies only after the enactment, promulgation, and enforcement by Act No. 2950 of Dec. 31, 1976, and even if the State property is a state property, it shall be subject to prescriptive acquisition with respect to the land, the public use of which is abolished for administrative purposes. However, the decision of the court below as above is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to prescriptive acquisition of State property. Accordingly, the argument on this point is with merit, and the part of the decision in the original judgment shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)