(b) Whether the possessor’s proposal for purchase after the expiration of the period for acquisition by prescription can be deemed as the waiver of prescription interest;

(c) The burden of proving negligence in the acquisition by prescription on the register;

(d) Duty of care to purchase real estate from a third party, other than a registered titleholder;

B. Even if the possessor has made a proposal for the purchase of land to the other party after the expiration of the acquisition period, it cannot be deemed that the possessor has expressed his/her intent to waive the benefit of prescription or that he/she has acted in bad faith in light of the fact that the possessor attempted to purchase in order to resolve the dispute between ownership and the owner even after the completion of the acquisition period.

C. In order to recognize the acquisition by prescription of the registry of real estate as stipulated in Article 245(2) of the Civil Act, it is necessary that the person registered as the owner was not negligent in the commencement of possession in addition to the requirement that the person occupied the real estate in good faith and in good faith with the intention of possession for ten years, and that the claimant bears the burden of proof for such negligence

D. In the sale of real estate, if the holder of a title on the registry is a third party who is not a seller, there is a reason to suspect the seller's authority in light of the transaction concept. Therefore, the buyer cannot be deemed to have commenced the possession of real estate in good faith without any negligence even though he did not confirm the actual state of the owner on the registry, or verify whether the seller has the authority to dispose of the real estate.

In the case of the acquisition by prescription, the intention of possession, which is an objective element for the acquisition by prescription, must be determined by the nature of the source of the possessor’s right, which objectively causes the acquisition by prescription. However, if the nature of the source of the possessor’s right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied as the intention of possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the possessor is not responsible for proving that he is the possessor’s possession by its nature, and the possessor is not the owner, and the possessor bears the burden of proving that he is the owner’s possession. In the case where the possessor claims the right of possession, such as the purchase, but it is not recognized, the presumption of the possession cannot be reversed or the possessor cannot be deemed as the owner’s possession in light of the nature of the source of the possessor’s right (see Supreme Court Decision 82Da708.709, Jul. 12, 1983; 82Meu1793, Jul. 179, 1982).

The court below did not make an explicit decision with regard to the above autonomous possession portion, but it does not have determined or rejected the above purport, and the argument on this part cannot be adopted merely because it criticizes the court below from the opposite point of view.

2. We examine the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

In order to recognize the acquisition by prescription of the real estate as stipulated in Article 245(2) of the Civil Act, it is necessary that the person registered as the owner did not have been negligent in the commencement of possession other than the requirement that he occupied the real estate in good faith in a peaceful and openly held possession for ten years, and such negligence has the burden of proof for the claimant (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu531, Oct. 11, 1983). Meanwhile, in the sale of the real estate, there is a circumstance to suspect the seller's authority in light of the transaction concept if the holder of the title is a third party other than the seller. Therefore, the buyer cannot be deemed to have commenced possession of the real estate without negligence even if he did not confirm the actual owner's authority to dispose of the real estate or verify whether the seller has the authority to dispose of the real estate in good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da3198, Mar. 8, 1983). In this case, the court below concluded that the owner of the real estate in this case is the nonparty 1 and the defendant acquired by prescription without negligence.

However, since the title of ownership on the registry of the real estate of this case was deceased on February 9, 194 and the defendant purchased from non-party 1 and possessed it, the above defendant's acquisition by prescription on the registry of the real estate of this case shall be recognized in order to acknowledge the above defendant's acquisition by prescription on the registry of the real estate, only after considering whether or not the defendant confirmed the seller who is not the nominal owner on the registry of the real estate of this case as to whether or not he has the right to dispose of the real estate of this case, it can be determined that the seller has no negligence. However, the court below determined that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to negligence in the acquisition by insufficient hearing or possession, and this constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on the Promotion, etc. of Litigation, etc., and this point is reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)