[소유권이전등기][공1975.7.1.(515),8461]
If the possession of the ship is the possession of the ship, the nature of the possession by the person who succeeds to the possession by inheritance from the ship;
If the possession of the representative is the owner, the possession of the person who succeeds to the possession by inheritance from the owner of the ship does not differ from the possession of the person who succeeds to the possession by inheritance from the owner of the ship, and the possession cannot be the owner of the ship, barring special circumstances, and the possessor should either express his/her intention to hold the possession to the person who has occupied the ship, or commence the possession as a new owner with the intention to own it.
[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellee
Modern
Daegu District Court Decision 74Na256 delivered on November 26, 1974
We reverse the original judgment. The case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.
The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the land owned by the defendant was located in the land adjacent to the land owned by Cho Jong-jin Kim at the time of the original judgment, which was owned by the plaintiff, and occupied the land as part of the above forest, and was occupied by the plaintiff's father on August 1, 1953, after he was aware that the land was part of the above forest, and the plaintiff's father, Kim Jong-young died on August 1, 1953, and he inherited it, and the plaintiff continued possession without doubt as to the above forest. After he received the above forest from his father on May 28, 1970, he was aware that the above land was part of the above forest. The plaintiff's father did not have any intention to own this land due to the nature of the title, even though the plaintiff's father did not have any intention to own this land, it was judged that the land was occupied with the intention to own it, or acquired with the objectively expressed intention to own it by inheritance from August 1, 1953.
However, such view by the court below cannot be said to be in conflict with the previous Supreme Court precedents that held that, in cases where the possession of the representative is the possession of the ship, the possession of the person who succeeded to the possession by inheritance from the owner of the ship does not differ in the inheritance transfer and its nature, barring special circumstances, the possession cannot be deemed the possession with the intention of the owner, or that the possessor must either indicate the intention of the owner to the person who occupied the ship or commence the possession with the intention of the ownership again by the new title (Supreme Court Decisions 70Da2755 delivered on February 23, 191; 66Da1256 delivered on October 18, 196). Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the succession of possession, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is therefore justified.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)