[소유권이전등기등][공1980.9.1.(639),13007]
The requirements for acquisition by prescription under Article 245(1) of the Civil Act
As for the prescriptive acquisition under Article 245(1) of the Civil Code, possession of real estate in a peaceful and peaceful manner with the intention to own it for twenty years, and the possessor’s good faith and negligence is not required.
Article 245(1) of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 66Da977 Delivered on September 27, 1966
Attorney Choi Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and one other
Defendant 1, Defendant 1 et al.
Busan District Court Decision 79Na292 delivered on April 4, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
The court below held that the above portion of the land owned by the non-party 1 (the non-party 2) was owned by the non-party 1 (the non-party 2) on July 4, 1942 and the non-party 2 (the non-party 2) on the non-party 1 (the non-party 6's death on June 10, 195) was sold to the non-party 2 on the non-party 1 (the non-party 2) on the non-party 1 (the non-party 9's father) on the non-party 6's 7th day after the lapse of 1942. The non-party 6's death on the non-party 1) and the non-party 1 (the non-party 2) on the non-party 9's 7th day after the non-party 2 occupied the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired each of the above land on the non-party 9's 16th day after the non-party 1.
Accordingly, the defendant, as the heir of the deceased non-party 1, has completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the land of this case, determined that he was liable to the plaintiff 1 for the land of this case and to the plaintiff 2 for the land of this part.
On the other hand, the court below's examination of the evidence conducted in order to find the above facts by comparing the records and reviewed the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the judgment below.
In addition, the prescriptive acquisition under Article 245(1) of the Civil Act is the peace and public performance of the possession of real estate for 20 years, and the possessor's preemptive negligence is not a requirement, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the prescriptive acquisition, such as the theory of lawsuit.
All arguments are groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)