Whether the administrative property can be an object of prescriptive acquisition

No administrative property which is State property shall be subject to prescriptive acquisition.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1198 delivered on Aug. 30, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 178Da178 delivered on Feb. 12, 1974, Supreme Court Decision 73Da557 delivered on Feb. 12, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 10651 delivered on Feb. 10651; Supreme Court Decision 22Nu52 delivered on Feb. 21, 2008; Decision 245(68)33 delivered on Mar. 33, 203, Court Gazette 483No729 delivered on Feb. 1

Korea

Defendant 1 and one other

Original Branch Court of Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (70A263, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The plaintiff confirms that the real estate recorded in the attached list is owned by the plaintiff.

Defendant 1 Union against the Plaintiff: (a) the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on April 26 of the same year by the receipt of the same date from the same registry office with respect to the real estate recorded in (i) the above list as stated in (ii) the Chuncheon District Court No. 1540 on May 26, 1966; (b) the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on April 26 of the same year; and (c) the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the transfer of ownership on each real estate recorded in (i) (ii) the same list as stated in (ii) the above registry office on July 12, 1966; and (d) the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the transfer of ownership on the same date with respect to each real estate amount of KRW 4,00,000 on August 9, 1968.

Defendant 1 Cooperative shall deliver to the Plaintiff the above list of real estate (1) (2).

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants, and a provisional execution is declared only for the above part of delivery.

The defendants shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

(2) At the time of March 11, 1954, when the office building was destroyed due to the 6.25 incident while using the original state-owned land as the site of the Crossing Police Station, the head of the above police station, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, at the time of March 11, 1954, entered into an exchange contract between the above building site and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 to exchange the total of 1,21 parcels of the above building site between 60-7, 115, and 11,00,00,00 from 1,541. The non-party 2 had no dispute over the above building site at the time of June 25, 200, and the registration of ownership transfer between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was made in order to sell the above building site in the name of the non-party 1 and the list of the non-party 2, which was divided into 3-1 and the above list.

Therefore, the above exchange contract entered into between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 on March 1, 278-3 to 1,541 of the above Eup/Myeon, which is the police station site, shall be deemed null and void as it is in violation of the State Property Act (Article 4 and Article 7, Act No. 122) at the time when the head of each ministry administer and transfer the administrative property, or no private right is established. Thus, the above list of real property divided into 1,541 in the above table shall be deemed to be owned exclusively by the plaintiff, and the above list of real property shall be deemed to be owned exclusively by the plaintiff, and the exhibition transfer registration and the establishment registration of neighboring mortgage made under the name of the defendants as to the above real property shall be deemed to be the registration of invalidation of cause based on the fact that the above list of real property was acquired

The plaintiff is obligated to confirm that the real estate in this case is owned by the plaintiff, and the above registration is cancelled, and defendant 1's association is obligated to deliver the real estate to the plaintiff, so even if the contract is null and void, this is due to the plaintiff's gross negligence. Thus, the defendants cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim unless the plaintiff compensates for damages incurred by the defendants. However, the above ground alone does not constitute a legal ground to refuse the plaintiff's claim in this case. Thus, the above ground is without merit, and there is no evidence to conclude that the defendants continuously occupied the above real estate with the intention to own it for 20 years or longer, or that the defendants continued to possess it for 20 years or longer, and the above real estate cannot be subject to the acquisition by prescription as an administrative property, which is State property, and therefore, it is groundless

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds that all of the claims of this case are reasonable, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95, Article 93, and Article 89 of the same Act with respect to

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)