[임야소유권확인등][집13(2)민,093]
Article 8(1) of the Civil Code where the acquisition by prescription for real estate is completed and not registered under the Gu Residents Act;
Section 1 of this section shall expire upon the expiration of the period of acquisition by prescription under the former Act at the time this Act enters into force.
registration under section 245 of this title with respect to the same legal effect
It is not to be determined by the former Civil Code, but to take into account the differences in the system of the former Civil Code.
The purport of recognizing the effect of prescriptive acquisition as it is under the new civil law is as follows.
I would like to see.
Article 8(1) of the Civil Code, Article 245(1) of the Civil Code, Article 162 of the Gu Residents Act
Chang-young
Kim Tae-tae
Cheongju District Court Decision 64Na93 delivered on March 17, 1965
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The first ground for appeal by the plaintiff's agent is examined.
However, according to the judgment of the court below, the court below judged that the plaintiff acquired ownership of the movable property in this case by prescription, and did not have acquired ownership because it did not pass through the registration under the name of the plaintiff, but judged that the defendant who purchased the above real property and completed the registration of ownership transfer could not assert ownership. In addition, Article 8 (1) of the Addenda of the Civil Code does not err in its judgment, and it is reasonable to interpret the purport that the effect of prescription acquisition by the Civil Code is recognized under the new Civil Code, considering the difference in the system of the new Civil Code, unless the plaintiff does not pass through the registration of ownership transfer by prescription, it is reasonable to interpret that the effect of prescription by the Civil Code is recognized under the new Civil Code. Therefore, in relation to the defendant who is a third party, unless the plaintiff does not pass through the registration of ownership transfer by the acquisition of prescription, the defendant Lee Jong-tae will acquire the real property in full by purchasing it from this paper, and thus, it cannot be asserted that the defendant who purchased the above real property and obtained the registration of ownership transfer before the defendant.
The second ground of appeal is examined.
I think that the original judgment, like the theory of lawsuit, did not have any assertion and proof as to the use of the statute of limitations at the time of the enforcement of the former Civil Act, the original judgment does not have any relation to the conclusion of the original judgment, and even if the judgment was erroneous, it cannot be said that the original judgment affected the original judgment, and as long as the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate in this case pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the Addenda of the Civil Act, unless the registration was passed through, it cannot be argued that the defendant who is the title holder of the first instance court is a non-entitled person. Therefore, the defendant who purchased the real estate in this paper from the title holder of the registration and passed the registration after the purchase of the real estate in this paper from the title holder of the registration
It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Articles 400, 395, 384, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu