[소유권보존등기말소등][집17(1)민,282]
An possessor shall be presumed to have been possessed by his own will, except where it cannot be deemed to have been possessed by his own will in the nature of his title.
An possessor shall be presumed to have possessed as his own intention, except in cases where possession cannot be regarded as an independent possession in the nature of his title.
Article 197 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Yongama Group
Seoul High Court Decision 68Na67 delivered on December 4, 1968
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Defendant Cho Young-hwan’s ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that this site was owned by the plaintiff on September 2, 1942, when the plaintiff purchased the ownership transfer registration from the non-party Japan on May 1, 194, and that it was intended to purchase it from the plaintiff for the purpose of use as a secretary at the Maritime Police Station prior to the Maritime Sea and obtained the plaintiff's approval, and it was used as a secretary at the Maritime Police Station prior to the Maritime Sea in order to use as a secretary at the Maritime Police Station prior to the Maritime Sea from August 15, 1945, and it was confirmed that the defendant occupied and used the site and the above ground buildings as a secretary at the street relationship after the Maritime Sea from September 15, 1945, and it was now confirmed that the defendant occupied and used the site and the above ground buildings as the official, and that the defendant acquired it as a new building from September 15, 1945 (new construction by the defendant). However, the defendant's defense was clearly held that it was owned by the plaintiff's intention.
However, it is determined by the objective nature of the fact that the possessor's possession is the cause of possession, and it is presumed that the possessor has possession as his own will, except in cases where possession cannot be viewed as an autonomous possession due to the nature of the source of authority, and according to the original judgment established in the original judgment, it is that the defendant has occupied the site of this case used as the site for the official residence by the chief of the police station in exchange for the head of the police station on the street with the head of the police station's office building site. However, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed that the defendant's possession is not an autonomous possession due to the nature of the source of authority. However, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense against the acquisition of the statute of limitations on the ground that the site was owned by the plaintiff
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges without examining the grounds of appeal on solitarys.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kimchi-bi (Presiding Judge)