(영문) 부산지방법원 2011.10.21.선고 2011구합2683 판결

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 11,154,540 of indemnity against the Plaintiff on March 8, 2011 is revoked. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of hearing.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 부산 서구 ☆동 ○○ 대 291㎡(이하 '이 사건 대지'라 한다)와 그 지상의 시멘트 블록조 스레트지붕 단층 주택 38.02㎡는 원고의 남편인 망 정C 명의로 등기되어 있다.

그런데, 이 사건 대지상에는 2동의 미등기주택이 더 있으며, 위 주택들과 그 마당 등 부지 전체는 담장으로 둘러싸여 인접 주택이나 공지들과 구분되고 있고, 원고가 위 주택들에 거주하고 있는데, 부산광역시 소유로서 이 사건 대지와 연접한 ☆동 ○○ 도로137㎡ 중 118m(이하 '계쟁토지'라 한다)도 위 담장 내에 들어가 원고 거주 주택의 부지로 사용되고 있다.

B. On March 8, 2011, the Defendant imposed KRW 11,154,540 of the indemnity for the period of possession from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010 on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the land in dispute, which is public property, without permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 10 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case is unlawful, inasmuch as the family members including the Plaintiff, etc. resided from January 19, 1965 to the present date and continuously occupied the land in dispute as the site of this case for 20 or more years in peace and openly and continuously owned the land in question before the disposition of this case, thereby acquiring by prescription.

(2) The defendant's assertion

① The land in dispute is an administrative property that is a public property and is not subject to prescriptive acquisition. ② If the area of the land in dispute between the site in this case and the land in this case is combined, the area occupied by the due to the sale and purchase exceeds considerably the area on the register of the site in this case, and is also known to the dueC. Therefore, the possession of the land in dispute is the possession of the land in dispute.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the property is an administrative property

According to Articles 5 and 6(2) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, public property is classified into administrative property and general property, and administrative property is not subject to prescriptive acquisition. Furthermore, such artificial property as a road is an administrative property only when it is designated by the Act and subordinate statutes, determined to be used for the general public by an administrative disposition, or when it is actually used as administrative property. In particular, a road is in the form of a road and has the form of a road; from the time a road is determined and publicly announced as a route under the Road Act and a road zone is determined and publicly announced; or from the time when a road is constructed through a procedure prescribed by the Urban Planning Act, it is an act of opening public use as a public property; the land category of the land is changed to a road, and it cannot be said that the land has yet been administrative property (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da348, Apr. 25, 200).

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the land in dispute is in the form of a road, and there is a public announcement of the designation or recognition of routes under the Road Act, or a determination or public announcement of a road zone, or that it was constructed as a road through the procedure under the Urban Planning Act, it is difficult to regard the land in dispute as an administrative property not subject to the prescriptive acquisition.

(2) Whether the enterprise has frequently occupied

A possessor is presumed to have occupied as his/her own intent (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act), and is presumed to have occupied as his/her own intent and the Plaintiff as well. However, since a person who intends to purchase real estate enters into a sales contract after confirming ownership relationship and size by a certified copy of the register or cadastral record, etc. before entering into the sales contract, it is reasonable to deem that the contracting party was aware of such fact, barring any special circumstances, in cases where the area of the land to be acquired by the sale exceeds considerably the area on the register. In such a case, barring any special circumstance, such excess portion is deemed to fall under the possession by the nature of the title (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da95649, Apr. 23, 2009).

앞서 든 증거들에 의하면, 정C는 1965. 무렵 이 사건 대지와 그 지상 주택 모두를 매수한 이래 그 가족들과 함께 거주하는 등으로 직접 또는 그 일부를 임차인을 통하여 점유하여 온 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 대지의 면적이 291m²임에 비하여 계쟁토지의 면적이 118m에 달하므로 이 사건 대지의 공부상 면적과 계쟁토지의 면적을 합할 경우 이 사건 대지의 공부상 면적을 상당히 초과하게 되는 사정은 인정되나, 한편 이 사건 대지를 사이에 두고 계쟁토지와 반대편에 위치하고 있는 부산 서구 ☆동 ○○, ○○, ○○ 소재 대지들 상에 세워져 있는 건물들도 정C가 이 사건 대지를 취득할 무렵부터 현재까지, 계쟁토지의 면적에 상응한 정도로, 이 사건 대지를 침범하여 축조되어 있어, 정C가 이 사건 대지를 매수하면서 실제로 점유하게 된 면적은 공부상 면적과 큰 차이가 없는 사실(즉 이 사건 대지 인근의 토지들의 그 공부상 경계와 그 지상 건물부지의 실제 경계가 연쇄적으로 다르게 된 사실) 또한 갑 5, 6, 8호증, 을 3호증의 2의 각 기재와 영상에 의하여 인정되므로, 위 인정과 같이 계쟁토지의 면적이 상당하다는 사정만으로 정C가 이 사건 대지의 매수에 따라 시작하게된 계쟁토지의 점유가 그 권원의 성질상 타주점유라고 볼 수 없다.

(3) Sub-decisions

After all, since the Plaintiff purchased the instant building site and its ground houses, it occupied the said building site as the said building site, and its possession was peace and public performance with its intention to own. Thus, the prescriptive acquisition for the land in dispute has already been completed prior to the instant disposition.

However, Article 81(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act provides that a person who uses, benefits from, or occupies public property without a permission for use or profit-making or a loan agreement shall collect indemnity from the person who uses, benefits from, or owns public property without any legal title. Since the purport of collecting the normal loan or fee is that the person who occupies, uses, or benefits from the public property is not entitled to any legal title, the person who occupies, uses, or benefits from the public property shall not be deemed to be subject to no application of the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu5803, Feb. 14, 1997; 2009Du11560, Oct. 29, 200). Moreover, a person who acquired real property by prescription may file a claim for the implementation of the procedure of ownership transfer registration for this reason, and if the ownership transfer registration is completed after the acquisition of ownership, then the person who is in the legal status of the Plaintiff’s possession or benefit-making from the public property is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.