logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.13 2014가단188618
취득시효에 관한 이행의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant land is a miscellaneous property subject to acquisition by prescription, because it is not a property necessary for administrative purposes.

B. Since 192, the Plaintiff had been installing and living containers on the instant land, and around that time, 8 tons of truck 30 tons, filled up as soil and used them for 20 years or more as dry field and thereafter, the prescriptive acquisition on the instant land was completed.

2. Determination

A. Article 7(2) of the State Property Act provides that "it shall not be subject to the acquisition by prescription, notwithstanding Article 245 of the Civil Act, the administrative property shall not be subject to the acquisition by prescription." Thus, in order to complete the acquisition by prescription of the State property, the state property shall be a general property that can continue to be an administrative property for the period of acquisition by prescription, not an administrative property, and the burden of proof on this point

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da29890, Oct. 9, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da19528, Dec. 10, 2009). Moreover, in a state where administrative property loses its function and does not provide it for its original purpose.

Even if the administrative property is not subject to the acquisition by prescription as long as it is not subject to the relevant laws and regulations, it is not a general property subject to the acquisition by prescription, but a declaration of intention to abolish the public property can be made by implied means, but it cannot be deemed that an implied declaration of intention to abolish the public property is not provided for its original purpose.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da11708, Dec. 10, 2009). B.

As to the instant case, each description of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 9 may be recognized by the Health Unit, i.e., the following facts in the column for the classification of property in the register of State-owned property (land) of the instant land, namely, the entry of “administrative property (public/general),” “public land” in the column for the category of property, and “public land under the State Property Act” in the column for the actual use thereof.

arrow