In a case where the right to permit the reclamation of state-owned land where the purchase procedure under the former Land Development Promotion Act is not implemented, and where the right to permit the reclamation of state-owned land is acquired with the knowledge of such circumstance and the land is occupied with the title, the nature of the possession (=other

According to the former Land Development Promotion Act (repealed by Act No. 1028, Feb. 22, 1962), the ownership of state-owned land is acquired by acquiring the right to permit the reclamation of state-owned land under the same Act after obtaining permission for the reclamation of state-owned land and obtaining authorization for the completion of the construction, not by acquiring the ownership of the land, but by completing the purchase procedure and completing the registration of the transfer of ownership. Thus, if the right to permit the reclamation of state-owned land for which the purchase procedure is not implemented under the same Act is known and the land has been occupied as the title, the possession cannot be deemed as the possession with the intention to exclude the ownership of the owner of the title and to control it exclusively as his own property, and it constitutes the possession of State-owned land.

Articles 197(1), 245(1) of the Civil Act, Articles 9, 12, and 17(1) of the Land Clearing Promotion Act (Law No. 1028, Feb. 22, 1962)

Supreme Court Decision 96Da19161 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2850) Supreme Court Decision 96Da49391 delivered on March 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1093), Supreme Court Decision 97Da15562 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2500)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim In-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na12046 delivered on February 24, 1998

The part of the lower judgment’s conjunctive claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. On August 25, 1962, Nonparty 1: (a) obtained a permit for land reclamation from 10,00 to 2,40 square meters from 10,000, to 30,000 from 10,000, to 30,000, the Plaintiff acquired a permit for land reclamation on the following grounds: (b) it was found that the Plaintiff acquired a permit for land reclamation from 10,000 to 9,000, to 19,000, to 19,000, for the purpose of this case’s land reclamation; and (c) obtained a permit for land reclamation from 10,000,000, to 10,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won; and (d) obtained a permit for land reclamation from 17,000.

2. However, we cannot accept the lower court’s decision that rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s possession is the possession of a third party.

In accordance with the facts established by the court below, since the plaintiff believed that the right to permit the reclamation that he acquired by the non-party 2 was about the land of this case and occupied it by delivery, the right that became the cause of acquiring the land of this case shall be the right to permit the reclamation. Meanwhile, even if the right to permit the reclamation that the plaintiff acquired by the plaintiff is not a mere right to cultivate the land of this case, but a right to acquire the ownership by purchasing the land of this case, as decided by the court below, the right to acquire the land of this case shall not be the right to acquire the ownership of the land of this case after completing the construction with the permission for the reclamation of the land of this case and obtaining the authorization for the completion of the construction with the permission for the purchase of the land of this case, but it shall acquire the ownership only after completing the redemption of the price and completing the registration for the transfer of ownership by taking over the land of the state-owned land of this case without the execution of the purchase procedure under the above law, its possession shall not be deemed as the possession with the intention to exclusively control the land of this case as its own property.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the Plaintiff’s possessory right as above and judged that the possession constitutes an independent possession in view of the nature of the source of title. In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of independent possession, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is an error in the misunderstanding of the reasoning. Accordingly, the ground of appeal pointing this out

3. Therefore, without determining the remainder of the grounds of appeal, we reverse the conjunctive claim part of the judgment below and remand this part of the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)