[소유권이전등기][공1993.2.15.(938),588]
The case holding that even if a person who occupied a forest and forest owned by the military openly and openly by intention of ownership for 20 years concluded a loan agreement on the forest and land between the military, it is difficult to view that he/she has waived the profits from the completion of acquisition by prescription unless he/she
The case holding that even if a person who occupied a forest and forest owned by the military in peace and openly by his own will for 20 years and thereafter entered into a loan contract with the military with regard to the forest, it is difficult to deem that he waived the profits from the completion of acquisition by prescription unless he/she otherwise expresses
Articles 184 and 245 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Senior Military Attorney Lee Han-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant
Daegu District Court Decision 92Na5858 delivered on September 18, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney
The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff occupied the forest of this case, which is owned by the elderly group, in a peaceful and public performance with the intention of ownership for 20 years, and held that even if the plaintiff concluded a loan agreement with the defendant on the forest of this case thereafter, the above facts alone cannot be deemed as giving up the benefit of the completion of the acquisition by prescription, unless the plaintiff expresses otherwise actively. In light of the evidence relation as explained by the court below, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by mistake of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and if the facts are the same as legally determined by the court below, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on possession, such as the theory of lawsuit,
2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2
The theory of lawsuit is nothing more than criticisming that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on possession or the legal principles on the extinction of the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer due to possession, on the premise of the facts acknowledged by the court below and inconsistent with the facts recognized by the court below (which is not the Plaintiff’s intention to possess the forest of this case). Therefore, the argument is
3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.