도시계획시설에서의 점유 판단

Abstract

The essence of this Supreme Court ruling can be understood only by understanding the structure of the urban planning facility project in this case. Typically, public facilities are provided as part of a housing construction project. However, in this case, it was installed as an urban planning facility project separate from the housing construction project, making the cause of the change in ownership of the urban planning facilities in this case, excluding the parking lot, unclear. If it had been installed during a housing construction project, it would have been a gratuitous contribution facility, but transfer of ownership by contributed acceptance became possible according to the conditions of the urban planning facility project implementation plan approval. The Supreme Court's decision to deny the completion of the statute of limitations by acknowledging the plaintiff's possession of the parking lot in this case is reasonable. However, since it was clear that the parking lot in this case was a public object as an urban planning facility provided for use by the general public, it is somewhat surprising that whether or not it was occupied became a major issue. Presumably, the reason why there was such controversy regarding possession was because of the criteria for determining possession that did not take into account the non-exclusive nature of the public objects. If the criteria for determining possession, which requires exclusive de facto control from a property rights perspective, are applied consistently regardless of whether the property is for public use, erroneous rulings are bound to occur. If the public objects perspective, which was not clearly revealed in this Supreme Court ruling, can be presented as a clear legal principle, confusion in practice will be reduced in determining possession of public objects such as urban planning facilities.