Possession of property devolvingd and interruption of prescription

Even if the possession of the property devolving upon the State has been possession independently, the progress of the acquisition by transfer shall be suspended at the same time as the enforcement of the Military Administration Act No. 33, and as a result,

Articles 162, 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Law, Counsel for defendant-appellee

A national legal representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry;

The Gwangju District Court of the first instance, the Gwangju High Court of the second instance, the Gwangju High Court of the second instance, 57 civil defense187 delivered on January 28, 1955

The final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the contents of No. 1-2 No. 1-3, No. 4, and each testimony of Heung-dong and Heung-Jung-Jung had not been changed to the difference, and evidence No. 2-1 to No. 4 were not sufficient to admit the plaintiff's claim, and there was no other evidence to recognize the difference. However, evidence No. 2-1 to No. 4 of No. 2-1 and No. 3-4 were admitted by the defendant's legal representative, and evidence No. 3-1 and No. 4 of No. 1 were combined with private documents and public documents, and they did not admit the defendant's legal representative's establishment and objection to the No. 4 without any objection to the No. 1-2 and No. 323 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's testimony without any objection to the evidence No. 1-2 and evidence No. 3-2.

However, according to the purport of the defendant's oral argument, it is obvious that the defendant does not recognize the establishment of only the portion of the registration system for Gap's No. 3 (rights) and does not recognize the establishment of the portion of the private document. Thus, the part of the private document cannot be the data for fact-finding of plaintiff's master, because it has no formal evidence, and the court may reject the certification or letter invoked by one of the parties by free evaluation of evidence even if there is no counter-proof of the other party's proof, which corresponds to the plaintiff's argument, and it cannot be viewed as a violation of the rules of evidence that the court below rejected the testimony of Gap's evidence No. 4, witness Kim

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the prescriptive acquisition of the real estate listed in the list No. 1 of Chapter 2 as of September 25, 4278, and held that the real estate owned by the plaintiff 2 was entirely owned by the Ministry of National Administration and Home Affairs as of September 18, 428, and that the prescriptive acquisition of the real estate owned by Japan was suspended on or before September 25, 4278 under the Military Administration Act and the Act and subordinate statutes No. 33 of 4278, which was the sole premise that the real estate owned by the plaintiff 2 was owned by the Ministry of National Administration and Home Affairs for the short-term period of 7 years after August 9, 4278, and that the real estate acquired by the plaintiff 2 as of August 9, 2007, which was entirely purchased by the public of the Republic of Korea for the short-term period of 8 years, and thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff 2's allegation that the real estate acquired by the plaintiff 3rd Industrial Complex held No. 427.

However, as of August 9, 4278, a short-term period of time, the property in the name of Japanese person on the register was reverted to the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and the law prohibits the possession of the property without permission and transfer of the property without permission. Thus, the possessor bears the duty to keep the property in custody in the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. Thus, even if he had possession of the property in question before, after the fact that he had possession of the property in question, the acquisition of prescription is suspended due to changes in the nature of the right of title. According to the records, the plaintiff's assertion that purchased the land in the list No. 1 attached to the original judgment on February 6, 4277 and acquired the prescription of 10 years or more with the intention of possession in good faith and without negligence, but the plaintiff's possession was merely possession without the intention of possession in the nature of the right of title at the same time, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the acquisition of the land can not be proven as the sole opinion of the court below's rejection of the evidence.

Therefore, since the appeal of this case is clearly groundless, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 401, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Han-jin, Justice Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)