(a) Where possession of the previous land, reserved land for replotting, and substitute land continues, the total sum of the period of possession in calculating the period of acquisition by prescription (affirmative);

(b) Where the entire land is substituted after the prescriptive acquisition is completed by occupying part of the previous land, the subject matter of prescriptive acquisition.

(c) In the case of a land substitution for a place, whether the possession of a specific part of the previous land can be deemed as the possession of a specific part on the land reserved for replotting or the land substituted (negative)

(a) The possession of the land scheduled for substitution is deemed to be the same as the possession of the previous land, and since the land determined for substitution is regarded as the same land as that of the previous land, if the possession of the previous land or the possession of the land determined for substitution and the possession of the land continue to exist, the occupancy period may be aggregated in calculating the acquisition period of the real estate ownership due to the possession

B. In a case where a replotting disposition is taken, even if a land substitution disposition occurs, the previous land is a change in the cadastral, shape, and location of the entire land due to the land substitution. Therefore, in a case where the entire land is substituted after the prescriptive acquisition is completed by occupying a part (specific part) of the previous land, even if the specific part acquired by prescription was included in the land substitution, it cannot be deemed that the specific part, the prescriptive acquisition of which completed is specified as the land’s land’s cadastral, shape, or the relevant specific part on the land’s substitute land, unless there are special circumstances, has been acquired by prescription, and it shall be deemed that the existing land has acquired by prescription the co-ownership equivalent to

(c) Where a land substitution has been designated prior to the completion of acquisition by prescription among possession of a specific part of the previous land, and the land substitution is finalized, it shall not be deemed that the occupant of the specific part of the previous land occupied the relevant specific part on the land substitution or the land substitution even before the land substitution is designated.

Article 245 of the Civil Act, Articles 57 and 62 of the Land Division and Rearrangement Projects Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 80Da2825 Delivered on November 23, 1982

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Export Industry Corporation, an incorporated association, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na2841 delivered on May 16, 1988

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Since the possession of a land substitution is deemed to be the same as the possession of the previous land, and since the land whose replotting has been confirmed is deemed to be the same as that of the previous land, the possession period may be aggregated in calculating the acquisition period of the ownership of real estate due to the possession in cases where the possession of the previous land or the possession of the land for which replotting has been confirmed and the possession of the land for which replotting has been confirmed is continued (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2825, Nov. 23, 1982). In cases of a land substitution disposition, even if a land substitution is made, the previous land is deemed to be a land substitution, because there is a change in the cadastral, shape, and location of the entire land due to the land substitution, and if the entire land is a land substitution after the acquisition by prescription is completed, the specific portion acquired by prescription cannot be deemed to have acquired the specific portion of the land, the specific portion of which has been completed as it is, or in such case, it cannot be deemed to have been determined that the previous land substitution portion was an occupant of the land.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined on October 16, 1964 that the plaintiff acquired the State-owned land which was installed with an ammunition under the exchange contract between the country and the Ministry of National Defense in the promotion of industrial complex development project at a 445,547 square meters of land of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Germany, Dong-dong, and Dong-dong, Seoul, and that on April 23, 1965, the plaintiff acquired the State-owned land which was installed with an ammunition under the exchange contract with the Ministry of National Defense on October 16, 1964, and on April 23, 1965, on the delivery of the State-owned land from the Ministry of National Defense, on the 94 meters of forests and fields (No. 1 omitted), 74 meters of forest land (No. 96 meters of forest land), which were located within the boundary of the steel-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the "former land"), 97 meters of land (No. 164 meters of land) and 97. 4 meters of land.14 meters of the land.

However, according to the fact-finding reply from the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the above land readjustment project was authorized to implement the project on November 28, 1969, and was designated as a land substitution on October 21, 1970 for the previous land, which was subject to a disposition of replotting on October 13, 1980, and the land substituted was divided into ( Address 1 omitted) forest land, which is the previous land, and ( Address 3, 4, 5, 6 omitted) for several times since November 29, 1984, and (No. 7-2 ( certified copy of the register) No. 7-14, the previous land shall be deemed to be the same portion of the land owned by the plaintiff on April 14, 198, but it shall be deemed to be 64/100 of the previous land (the above part of the land occupied by the plaintiff on September 16, 197).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to replotting, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, 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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)