Article 245(2) of the Civil Act provides, “If a person who is registered as an owner of a real estate, possesses the real estate in good faith and without negligence for ten years, he/she shall acquire ownership.” The purport of Article 245(2) of the Civil Act is that “A person who is registered as an owner of the real estate possesses the real estate in good faith and without negligence, the period

(Minor Opinion)

A person who acquires ownership by prescription under Article 245(2) of the Civil Act shall be registered as an owner of real estate for ten years, but it does not necessarily have to be registered in his/her name during that period, but it is sufficient to register as an owner of real estate during that period.

[Destruction of this judgment by the en banc Decision en banc Decision 87Meu2176 dated December 26, 89]

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above construction of Taewon Co., Ltd. (title 25, 1978.10.25) was conducted by considering the facts and the evidence adopted by the parties, and the above construction of Taewonwon Co., Ltd. (title 28.25, 1978.19.2.19.2.2.2.22.22.22 Busan District Court received 8204, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the above sale. 1746.2.2.2.2.2.2. 2.2. 2. 1. 2. 2. 1. 2. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 1. 2. 2. 1. 2. 3. 1. 3. 1. 1. 2. 3. 1. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 2. 3. 3. 3. 2. 2. 2. 3.

However, Article 245(2) of the Civil Act provides that "When a person who has registered as an owner of real estate possesses real estate in good faith and without negligence for ten years, he/she shall acquire ownership." This provision provides that "When he/she possesses such real estate in good faith and without negligence, he/she shall be ten years equal to the time of registration as an owner of the real estate and the time of possession." Thus, it constitutes an unlawful appeal against the Supreme Court Decision 77Da752 delivered on July 16, 198; 73Da1744 delivered on Nov. 12, 1974; 80Da2179 delivered on Nov. 13, 1981; 80Da2179 delivered on Jan. 13, 1981. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the prescriptive acquisition of the forest in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it constitutes an unlawful appeal against Article 25(2)24 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench except for a dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court Justice Kang Jong-young, Lee Jong-young, Kim Young-young, Lee Jae-young

The dissenting opinion of the judge of the Supreme Court is as follows. The dissenting opinion of the judge of the Supreme Court is as follows.

A person who acquires ownership by prescription under Article 245(2) of the Civil Act shall be registered as an owner of real estate for 10 years, but it does not necessarily have to be registered in his name during that period, but it is sufficient to register as an owner of real estate. This is because in the prescription under Article 245(2) of the Civil Act, the registration and possession shall have an equivalent value as a requirement to indicate the appearance of the right, so it is reasonable to apply mutatis mutandis Article 199 of the Civil Act on the succession of possession as to the registration. Accordingly, in many cases under the current Civil Act, which does not recognize public trust, protection of bona fide and bona fide acquisitor who traded the registration is the result of protecting the registration. Moreover, in the short-term acquisition by prescription under the former Civil Act (Article 162(2)), the short-term acquisition by prescription system under the Civil Act (Article 162(2)), as it was immediately acquired solely by possession for 10 years as stipulated therein, and thus, it does not go against the legislative intent of the current Civil Act.

For the foregoing reasons, we dissent from the Majority Opinion.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee Jong-hwan, Kim

The transfer of a judge of the Supreme Court cannot be signed and sealed upon his retirement.