[1] Where the previous land was designated as a reserved land before the completion of the acquisition by prescription for the specific part of the previous land, the recognition of the identity of the land subject to possession before and after the designation of the reserved land for replotting and the aggregate

[2] In the case of the above [1] Whether the effective date of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution is the starting point of counting the effective date of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution, and the period of prescriptive acquisition

[3] Where a disposition of replotting was taken before the completion of the prescriptive acquisition for a specific part of the land scheduled for replotting, recognition of the identity of the land to be occupied before and after the disposition of replotting and the aggregate period of possession (affirmative with qualification

[1] Where a specific part of the previous land has been occupied before the expiration of the acquisition period of real estate ownership, the specific part of the previous land cannot be deemed identical before and after the designation of the land to be reserved for replotting, even if it is a removal of land.

[2] In the case of the above [1], it can be deemed that the period of prescriptive acquisition of real estate ownership is renewed by counting the effective date of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution, namely, the new possession separate from the possession of the previous land after the effective date of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution.

[3] As long as a replotting disposition is conducted according to the designated disposition of the land scheduled for substitution, the specific portion of the land scheduled for substitution is not changed between the land scheduled for substitution and the land determined for substitution, and thus, it can be deemed as a specific portion of the land, the land of which replotting is determined, as it is, as it does not occur between the land scheduled for substitution and the land determined for substitution. Thus, in cases where a land substitution disposition was occupied in a specific part of the land scheduled for substitution and the land continues to possess the specific part before

[1] Article 245 of the Civil Code, Article 57 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act / [2] Article 245 of the Civil Code, Article 57 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act / [3] Article 245 of the Civil Code, Articles 57 and 62 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 80Da2825 delivered on November 23, 1982 (Gong1983, 187) Supreme Court Decision 88Meu18795 delivered on September 26, 1989 (Gong1989, 1553) Supreme Court Decision 94Da3987 delivered on May 23, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2228) / [1/2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da30306 delivered on May 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1695) (Gong195Ha, 195Ha, 295Ha, 2954), Supreme Court Decision 95Da15742 delivered on July 25, 195 (Gong1995Ha, 296Da68607 delivered on August 26, 2096)

Yellow Tax Constitution

Korea

Incheon District Court Decision 94Na1920 delivered on October 7, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the non-party 2 purchased the above land before the land was owned by the non-party 1, Japan in spring in 1945, and resided on the part of the above land without completing the registration of ownership transfer, and the above land for use was sold to the non-party 2, and the plaintiff sold it to the non-party 1, 1981 due to the plaintiff's death on November 1, 198, and the land before the land substitution was owned by the non-party 2, which was owned by the non-party 1, the above part of the land before the above land substitution was owned by the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the above part of the land before the land substitution was occupied by the non-party 4, the land before the expiration of the land substitution period from the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the land of this case, which was occupied by the non-party 1, the non-party 5, and the land owned by the plaintiff 16, the above part of the above land substitution period.

In calculating the period of prescriptive acquisition of the ownership of real estate, the starting date of possession, which is the starting date of the period of possession, is an indirect fact for estimating the period of possession, and the court may examine the timing of possession, which can serve as the starting date of the period of possession as recognized by the litigation data without seeking any allegations from the parties concerned, and determine whether the period of prescriptive acquisition expires by examining the timing of possession, which is recognized as the starting date of the period of possession. Meanwhile, in cases where the designation of a land substitution is made before the expiration of the period of prescriptive acquisition of the ownership of real estate while possessing a specific part of the previous land, even if it is a land substitution, the specific part of the previous land cannot be deemed the same before and after the designation of the land substitution

Therefore, in this case, if a new possession separate from the possession of the previous land is commenced after the effective date of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution comes into effect, and the acquisition period of real estate ownership is the starting date of the above effective date, and the acquisition period of real estate ownership is new. Also, since a replotting disposition does not change between the land scheduled for substitution and the land determined for substitution, the specific part of the land scheduled for substitution may be deemed as a specific part of the land, the replotting period is determined as it is, as it does not occur between the land scheduled for substitution and the land determined for substitution. Therefore, in cases where a land substitution disposition was taken before the expiration of the acquisition period of ownership, and the specific part has been continuously occupied even after the expiration of the acquisition period of ownership, the possession period may be added

As to the instant case, if a replotting disposition was conducted as the object of a land substitution project, the land before the instant land substitution is the object of a land substitution project, barring special circumstances, the land substitution is deemed to have been designated. Therefore, the court below should have determined that the period of prescriptive acquisition for the instant portion has not expired for the reasons as stated in its reasoning, even though the period of prescriptive acquisition for the instant portion has not yet expired in the case where the period of prescriptive acquisition for the land substitution and the land for which replotting disposition has become final and conclusive, after specifying whether the land substitution was designated for the instant land before the instant land substitution, the effective date thereof, when the land substitution disposition was made, and when the land substitution disposition was made, and whether the land substitution disposition was made as the designated land substitution disposition.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)