In the event that the State-owned property is paid without permission during the process of acquisition by prescription and the loan contract is concluded, whether the subsequent possession is deemed as the possession by the owner (affirmative)

In the event that an occupant entered into a loan agreement with the State during the period of acquisition by prescription for the land, which is State property, and paid the rent for each year during the loan period, and the occupant paid the rent for the occupation and use of the land as compensation before the contract, it is reasonable to deem that the occupant occupied the land with the approval of the State’s ownership and with the consent of the State. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the occupant’s possession after the payment of indemnity for the land or the conclusion of

Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 95Da3756 Decided April 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 77), Supreme Court Decision 94Da60301 Decided September 29, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3610), Supreme Court Decision 97Da5304 Decided March 10, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 991)

Plaintiff

Korea

Daegu District Court Decision 97Na4676 delivered on October 29, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. On the second ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that, on April 1, 1949, the ownership transfer registration was completed on the land of this case, which was originally owned by Nonparty 1, but Nonparty 2 purchased the land of this case from Nonparty 1 on April 1, 1945, and thereafter he occupied and cultivated the land of this case, he occupied and cultivated the land of this case. Nonparty 4, the Plaintiff’s husband, purchased the land of this case from Nonparty 3 on December 18, 1969 and occupied and cultivated it, and died on September 15, 197, the Plaintiff did not occupy and cultivate the land of this case without permission during the period of 97 years from the date of acquisition of the real estate of this case, or for the remainder of the period of 97 years from the date of possession of the land of this case to the date of 198 years from the date of acquisition of the real estate of this case.

B. The court below recognized that the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant for the purpose of paying the loan charges each year for five years after concluding the loan agreement with the Defendant during the period of acquisition by prescription for the land of this case, which is State property, and paid the loan charges for the purpose of compensation before the contract. According to Eul evidence 2-2 (Application for Permission for Use of State Property and Contract, records 65 through 67) of this case, the Plaintiff is liable for the preservation of the loan property as a good manager when entering into the loan agreement with the Defendant as to the land of this case with the Defendant. The Plaintiff shall restore the loan property to the original state within the designated period, and return the loan property to the original state within the designated period, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a defect in declaration of intention in the process of concluding the above loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Thus, if the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case after paying the loan contract with the Defendant without permission for occupation and use of the land of this case, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff was liable to occupy the land of this case with the Defendant 194 or 195.2.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the possession of the owner on the ground as above. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the possession of the owner of the ship, and it is obvious that this affected the judgment, which points out this.

2. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)