[1] Where a road becomes administrative property

[2] The case holding that where a road was not used as a road and its form has not been provided, it does not constitute administrative property only on the basis of those determined and publicly notified as a road site under a redevelopment project plan

[1] Administrative property under the State Property Act refers to the property owned by the State that is directly used or decided to be used for public use, public use, or corporate use. Artificial property such as a road is an administrative disposition designated by a law, is determined to be used for public use as an administrative disposition, or is actually used as an administrative property. On the other hand, a road shall be in the form of a road. On the other hand, a road shall be in the form of a road, and a road zone shall be determined upon the public announcement of designation or approval of a road route and the public announcement of the determination of a road zone under the Road Act, or upon the public announcement of the determination of a road zone,

[2] The case holding that where a road was not used as a road and its form has not been provided, it does not constitute administrative property only on the basis of those determined and publicly notified as a road site under a redevelopment project plan

[1] Article 4(2) of the State Property Act, Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, Article 25 of the Road Act, Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 5 of the Urban Redevelopment Act / [2] Article 4(2) of the State Property Act, Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, Article 25 of the Road Act, Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 5 of the Urban

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da23951 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2623), Supreme Court Decision 94Da6082 delivered on April 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1971), Supreme Court Decision 93Da44395 delivered on September 5, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3343) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da18195 delivered on February 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1427), Supreme Court Decision 95Da24654 delivered on January 26, 196 (Gong196Sang, 739) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da5399 delivered on May 25, 195 (Gong1995Ha decided May 195, 295)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na32315 delivered on December 29, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

(1) The lower court determined that: (a) the instant site was part of 125.4 shares of the Defendant; (b) 7.2/132; (c) the ownership transfer registration for the ownership of each share was made on 132.2; (d) on June 15, 1957, the deceased non-party 2 purchased the said site from the non-party 3 to the housing site; and (e) on January 7, 1981, the deceased non-party 1’s housing site; and (d) on the same date, the instant site was owned by the non-party 1 to the non-party 4; and (e) the ownership transfer registration for the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 2, including the ownership ownership transfer registration for the non-party 1 to the non-party 4, the ownership transfer registration for the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, the ownership transfer registration for the non-party 1 to the non-party 2, the title title 16.

(2) The term "administrative property under the State Property Act" means the property owned by the State and decided to be used directly for public use, public use, or public use. The artificial property such as a road is an administrative disposition or determined to be used for public use under the Act and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da12579 delivered on September 13, 1994; 94Da40505 delivered on October 12, 1995). On the other hand, the road shall have the form of a road, and the road shall not have been designated or authorized as an administrative property under the Road Act, and it shall not be deemed that there was a new site from the time of the commencement of redevelopment project to the 19th anniversary of the date of the construction site to the 19th anniversary of the date of the commencement of redevelopment project, or from the time of the construction site to the 19th anniversary of the construction site to the 19th anniversary of the date of its commencement under the Urban Redevelopment Act or the 19th anniversary of the construction site to the 19th anniversary of the construction site.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to administrative property under the State Property Act, which constitutes administrative property and thus cannot be acquired by prescription, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal assigning this error are with merit.

(3) Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)