Even if You Thought It Was Your Land for More Than 20 Years, If It Is Administrative Property, It Must Be Restored to Its Original State... Court Says "Acquisitive Prescription Does Not Apply"

[Financial News] Even if a person occupied land for more than 20 years believing it to be their own, a court has ruled that the land must be restored to its original state if a cadastral survey shows it is administrative property.
According to the legal community on the 21st, the Seoul Administrative Court, Division 4, presided over by Chief Judge Kim Young-min, ruled on April 17 against three building owners, including A, in a lawsuit filed against the Mayor of Gwanak District seeking to overturn an order to restore land that had been occupied without permission.
A and the others own land and buildings adjacent to a road in Gwanak District, Seoul. In November 2024, Gwanak District ordered them to restore the land, which had been used as a parking lot and for other purposes, by December 2024 after a cadastral survey confirmed that it was a road owned by the Seoul Metropolitan Government.
In response, A and the others filed an administrative lawsuit in February last year, arguing that the restoration order was unlawful. Under the Civil Code, a person may acquire ownership of real estate if they have occupied it for more than 20 years while believing it to be their own, and they claimed that the land had become theirs because they had occupied it for more than 20 years.
The court, however, rejected all of their arguments. It said administrative property cannot be subject to acquisitive prescription. Acquisitive prescription refers to a legal doctrine that allows a person to obtain ownership of real estate after peacefully possessing it for a certain period, even without title.
The court added that the road had been designated as administrative property and as a road owned by the Seoul Metropolitan Government under a 1978 notice from the Seoul Metropolitan Government, and that A and the others failed to prove that the road was not administrative property.
The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that they had received a road occupancy permit during the building permit process. It explained, "A road occupancy permit processed together with a building permit remains effective only within the scope necessary for construction work," and "after the work is completed, a separate road occupancy permit must be obtained."
The court further found that even if Gwanak District had tolerated A and the others' unauthorized occupation of the road for a long time, that did not mean it had granted permission for use.
The court said, "There is a risk that road occupancy could create traffic hazards," adding, "The occupied area is being used as a parking lot, flower bed and staircase, and the building itself encroaches on the road, so the burden of restoring it to its original state cannot be considered excessive."
A and the others have appealed the first-instance ruling.
[email protected] Kim Dong-gyu Reporter