Whether a state-owned land which is a miscellaneous property becomes an administrative property solely on the ground that the state-owned land has changed its category into a ditch and designated and registered the office of administration (negative)

Where the State has changed the category of state-owned land which is a miscellaneous property into a ditch and completed a registration of preservation of ownership in the name of "state", but it has not been actually used as a ditch, it is difficult to see that it is determined to use it as a ditch, which is a public property, as provided in Article 4 (2) of the State Property Act, and it is not subject to prescriptive acquisition.

Article 245(1) of the Civil Act; Articles 4(2) and 5(2) of the State Property Act

Supreme Court Decision 95Da24654 delivered on January 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 3343 delivered on September 5, 1995) Supreme Court Decision 95Da7369 delivered on March 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1238)

Plaintiff

Korea

Daegu District Court Decision 95Na3143 delivered on August 23, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above non-party 1 and the plaintiff owned and cultivated the real estate in the name of the defendant 1, Nam-gu 205 square meters (hereinafter this case's real estate 1 omitted) on March 18, 1987. The plaintiff's father purchased the real estate of this case and two parcels of land from the deceased non-party 2 on March 9, 1964 and died on April 22, 1978. The plaintiff, as his sole heir, succeeded to the above possession of the non-party 1 and it was presumed that the non-party 1 and the plaintiff occupied the real estate of this case as the plaintiff 1's intention to own the real estate of this case, and it was difficult for the defendant to use the real estate of this case as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 1 as the non-party 1's owner defense of this case's real estate of this case.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are deemed to be justifiable, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Articles 5(2) and 30 of the

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.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)