Whether state-owned land designated and publicly notified as a national park is subject to prescriptive acquisition (negative)

Even if a private person occupies or uses a state-owned land designated and publicly notified as a national park, it shall be deemed as an administrative property for public use, which is an administrative property under Article 4(2)2 of the State Property Act, even if the land is occupied or used by the private person. Since it cannot be deemed as an administrative property only for goods within a park area directly necessary for a park project, it shall not be deemed as an administrative property. Accordingly, after the State-owned land is designated and publicly notified as a national park, it shall not be subject

Article 245 of the Civil Act; Articles 4(2)2 and 5(2) of the State Property Act; Article 2 of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 3900 of December 31, 1986)

Supreme Court Decision 94Da12593 delivered on August 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1636), Supreme Court Decision 94Da4287 delivered on November 14, 1995 (Gong1994Ha, 2294) (Gong1996Sang, 2)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 94Na5341 delivered on April 27, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period are examined as well.

1. The fact-finding of the court below, which held that the land was registered as the general property, the supplementary injury conservation property (contributed forest) before the division, was confirmed through division, and that the land was designated as the development restriction zone under the Urban Planning Act on August 6, 1971, and was designated as the development restriction zone under the Urban Planning Act on December 26, 1978, and that on April 2, 1983, the designation and public notice was made as the North Korean National Park under the Natural Parks Act on April 2, 1983, is justifiable in view of records and relevant evidence, and there is no error of law as pointed out.

2. Examining the relevant provisions of the Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 3900 of Dec. 31, 1986), which had been in force at the time of the designation and public announcement of the instant land as a national park, the term “national park” means a beautiful natural scenic area which can represent the national scenery of the Republic of Korea and which has been designated under Article 4 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4268 of Dec. 27, 190), the Minister of Construction and Transportation (amended by Act No. 4268 of Dec. 27, 199), has designated and public notification of the designation of the said land (Articles 4 and 7), the park shall not be closed or its district shall not be reduced, except in cases where it is inevitable for military purposes prescribed by Presidential Decree, or where it is not possible to use the said land as a park area for public purposes due to natural disasters, etc., and the Minister shall determine and publicly notify the occupancy or use of the said land within the park area, including park conservation district, natural environment district, agricultural and fishing zone, etc.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim seeking the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the land of this case was excluded from the subject of prescriptive acquisition on July 7, 1969 because it was at least an administrative property or preserved property under the State Property Act as a national park after April 2, 1983. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim seeking the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the prescriptive acquisition has been completed at the expiration of 20 years from the commencement of possession of the land of this case on July 7, 1969. The decision of the court below is just in its conclusion, and there

3. As long as the land of this case belongs to the administrative property used for public purposes as seen earlier, the competent Gu office has classified and managed it as miscellaneous property, as pointed out, or the public official in charge has sent a document to the possessor of the land with the knowledge of it as miscellaneous property and notified the possessor of the conclusion or purchase of the loan agreement, such circumstance cannot be deemed as miscellaneous property and there is no evidence to determine whether the land is subject to prescriptive acquisition.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)