Whether it is possible to acquire prescription between January 1, 1965 and May 1, 197, in case where a parcel of land belonging to the State has been purchased and occupied (affirmative)

The possessor of the property originally reverted to the State shall be deemed to fall under the possession of another owner in the nature of his title. However, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, promulgated by Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963, and Article 5 of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, where the possessor has occupied the land from January 1, 1965 to the date of the purchase since the State Property Act was applicable to the state property which was enacted by Act No. 1346 of May 1, 1965, and Article 5 (2) of the State Property Act, which provides that the state property shall not be acquired by prescription, applies only after May 1, 1977 (see Supreme Court Decision 828Meu26262, Dec. 1, 190).

Article 245 of the Civil Act; Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction (Act No. 346 of May 29, 1963); Article 5 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction; Article 5 (2) of the former State Property Act (Act No. 2950 of December 31, 1976); Article 1 of the Addenda to the former State Property Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na45348 delivered on June 20, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The possessor of the property originally reverted to the State shall be deemed to have a duty under the law to keep the property as a good manager until it is designated as a state-owned or public property, or sold to the public or corporation under the instructions of the Government, and shall be deemed to fall under the possession of another owner by the nature of the title. However, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, promulgated by Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963, and Article 5 of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, which was not concluded until the end of December 1, 1964, if the above obligation to keep the property was cancelled and the purchase or possession of the land was cancelled, the possession of the land was converted to an independent possession, and Article 5 (2) of the State Property Act, which provides that the property shall not be acquired by prescription, applies after the enactment and enforcement of the Act No. 2950, Dec. 31, 1976.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the land of this case was originally occupied by Non-party Lee Jong-hee from January 1, 1965, and that Non-party Jong-hee, the plaintiffs' prior owner of land, purchased it from Dong Byung-hee on March 1950, and occupied and cultivated it on November 23, 1957, knowing that this land was unregistered land, and completed registration of preservation of ownership in the future and he was cultivated until he died on October 22, 1982. The court below held that even if the land of this case was reverted to the defendant's assertion in accordance with the above legal principles, such land was owned independently from the land of this case from the date of January 1, 1965, and that there was no negligence at the beginning of the possession, and that the registration of this case was not valid after the fact of violation of the rules of evidence or the fact that the registration of this case was completed after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and therefore, the judgment of the court below was just and correct.

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

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)