The nature of the possession by the person who has occupied only the right to possess and use the state-owned land on the idea that it would be avoided (=the possession by the owner)

If the land, which is a state-owned land, is to be cut off, and only the right of possession and use is taken over, the possessor shall not be deemed to have occupied the land with the intention of exclusive control as his own property, and it shall not be deemed to have been possessed with the intention of exclusive control as it is, given the nature of the source of right.

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

Supreme Court Decision 95Da18024 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2806), Supreme Court Decision 94Da54016 delivered on August 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3122), Supreme Court Decision 96Da19161 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2850), Supreme Court Decision 96Da36562 delivered on November 26, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 69) (Gong197Sang, 1093)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on August 1, 200

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na53672 delivered on March 19, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below constructed the building of this case on each of the land of this case, which was owned by the non-party 1, which was a state-owned property by the non-party 1, and constructed stone festivals and flowers, and operated it by cultivating it as dry field. From December 22, 1971, 00 ○○○, which was an institution for the aged under the Dominium of the Dominium, built a warehouse under the judgment, and the designated parties 2 and the plaintiff (appointed parties) did not agree on October 12, 1982 with the court below's decision that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired the above part of the land of this case, which was occupied by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, which was possessed by the non-party 6, as the owner of the Dominium National Association of Korea and the non-party 2, who acquired the above part of the land of this case. The court below's decision that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired each of this case's land.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that deemed that the possession of the designated parties constitutes the possession of a third party is just, and the decision of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the acquisition by prescription, such as the violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the acquisition by prescription, and all the Supreme Court decisions pointing out by the theory of lawsuit are inappropriate to be

In addition, as long as the possession by the designated parties is the possession by the owner, regardless of whether the possession by the prior occupant is the possession by the owner is the possession by the owner, the argument by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is rejected. Therefore, the argument that the possession by the non-party foundation is the possession by the owner is the possession by the owner cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, which asserts that there is an illegal ground, such as the theory of lawsuit,

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)