In case where a property devolving upon the State which was not sold by December 31, 1964 was purchased before it was occupied by it, whether it was presumed that it was possession with intention from January 1, 1965 (affirmative)

The possession of the property devolving upon the State in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State shall be deemed to be the possession of property devolving upon the nature of the title. However, according to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Act and Article 5 of the Addenda of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, since the property devolving upon the State shall be deemed to be the State property free of charge until the end of December 1964, since the property devolving upon the State property not sold by the date shall be deemed to be the State property from January 1, 1965. Accordingly, in a case where the property devolving upon the State was purchased and occupied before that date, the possession of the land was the State property from January 1, 1965, which was the State

Articles 197(1) and 245 of the Civil Act; Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963); Article 5 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction

Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2176 Decided December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 342) Supreme Court Decision 92Da26819 Decided February 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1060), Supreme Court Decision 95Da4075 Decided March 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1240), Supreme Court Decision 94Da41805 Decided March 22, 196 (Gong196Sang, 1331)

State interest.

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na26215 delivered on October 30, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the second ground for appeal

The possession of the property devolving upon the State under the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State shall be deemed to be the possession of the property devolving upon the nature of the title. However, according to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963) and Article 5 of the Addenda, since the property devolving upon the State, which was not concluded by the last day of December 1, 1964, should be state-owned gratuitously, the property devolving upon the State as of January 1, 1965 shall be state-owned property. Therefore, in a case where the land, which was the property devolving upon the State, was purchased and occupied before that date, it shall be deemed that the possession of the land was reverted to the possession independently, and therefore, it is possible to proceed with the acquisition by prescription from that time (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2176 of December 26, 198).

The court below found, based on the evidence of the court below, that the site of this case was owned by the non-party 1, Japan before the tidal wave, and that the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of reversion of rights on January 21, 198 in the defendant's future on September 21, 1948. The plaintiff purchased the site of this case from the above Ameral Corporation, the owner at the time of March 1, 1945, and occupied and used the site of this case from the time of the purchase of the site of this case to the date of the closing of argument of the court below at the time of this case. The plaintiff was presumed to have occupied the site of this case as State property in peace and public performance from January 1, 1965 to the date of closing of argument of the court below. In light of the records, the court below's determination that the acquisition of ownership was completed on January 1, 1985 after the lapse of 20 years from the date of this case's land of this case as State property.

2. On the third ground for appeal

The court below rejected the defendant's defense that the plaintiff renounced the completion of the statute of limitations after the completion of the statute of limitations on the site of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, i.e., in light of the records, it is reasonable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension

In addition, the Supreme Court's precedent that points out in the ground of appeal is different, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.

3. On the first ground for appeal

Although the plaintiff's claim area and the occupied area are different, the court below's approval of possessory right over 112 square meters, which is a whole area, is incomplete, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, as a new assertion of facts that do not present at all the court below.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)