[소유권이전등기][공1991.12.1.(909),2675]
The case holding that if the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of the Si for the real estate, etc. in which a common cemetery was de facto converted, and even if it was registered in the City Property Register as public property, it may be deemed that the real estate had been possessed as a market owner from the time of its registration
The case holding that if the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of the Si for the real estate in which the joint cemetery was de facto converted into a common cemetery, and the registration was made in the City Property Register as public property, even if there was no specific use of the real estate at the time, it can be deemed that the Si had continued to manage the real estate, and therefore, it can be deemed that the market price from the time of registration has occupied the real estate as owner
Articles 192 and 245(1) of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 67Da136 Decided March 28, 1967
Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee
Attorney Kim Dong-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Gwangju High Court Decision 90Na1501 delivered on June 21, 1990
Supreme Court Decision 89Meu18136 delivered on February 23, 1990
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the first ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the deceased non-party 1 and the non-party 2 with respect to the real estate of this case in the name of the deceased non-party 1 and the second real estate of this case in the name of the deceased non-party 1, the registration of ownership transfer is again made in the name of the deceased non-party 1 with respect to the real estate of this case in the name of 00,000, and each of the above second real estate was made in the name of the defendant's name on May 8, 1956 for the same day donation (the record shows that the sale was caused by the sale). The above judgment of the court below is justified on the premise that each of the above registrations made after the death of the deceased non-party 1 in the name of the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1 in the name of the above deceased non-party 1 in the name of the deceased non-party 1, unless there are any other circumstances.
2. On the second ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that he continuously occupied the above 1 and 2 real estate as an ombudsman's co-owned will since he received them around December 1, 194, and acquired prescription period of 20 years from that time. According to macro evidence, it can be recognized that the above real estate was registered in the Si-owned Property Register as a public property, and that he installed tombstones, etc. for the graves of those who died within the above 1 real estate. However, in light of the fact that the date and time of transfer registration of ownership of the above 1 real estate was 1956.5.8, the above 1 and 3 real estate were owned by the defendant's co-owned property as part of the above 197 Si-owned estate complex development project, and it was not sufficient to recognize that the above 1 and 2 real estate had been occupied by the defendant's co-owned property as part of the above 194 Si-owned estate complex development project, but it was difficult to recognize that the above 1 and 16 Si-owned estate were installed as part of the above.
However, as recognized by the court below, if the above real estate was registered under the name of the defendant Si on May 8, 1956 in order to register the ownership of each of the above real estate under the name of the defendant Si with property for public purposes, even if there was no specific use by the defendant Si on each of the above real estate, it can be deemed that the defendant Si continued to manage the above real estate. Furthermore, if the above 1 real estate had a large number of dead bodies due to callra around July 1946, the number of graves or graves were buried in the common cemetery, it would be deemed that the state of the above 15 real estate had already been registered under the name of the defendant 1 and the above 2 had been occupied by the defendant 1 and the above 5 market price had no special circumstance since it had been registered under the above 5th market price since it had been registered under the name of the defendant 1 and the above 5th market price had not been established (see, e.g., evidence No. 7-1 to 3).
Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the Defendant's defense of prescriptive acquisition cannot be deemed to have possessed the real estate of this case before March 17, 1979 by misapprehending the legal principles on possession, or in violation of the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the issue of this point is with merit.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-ho (Presiding Justice)