beta
(영문) 대법원 1982. 7. 27. 선고 81다1174,1175 판결

[소유권이전등기등][공1982.10.1.(689),814]

Main Issues

Where a funeral car of the inheritee has commenced possession with the belief that it is an inheritor, an example of recognizing the possession frequently;

Summary of Judgment

If the funeral car of an inheritee has commenced possession with the belief that he/she is his/her heir or the person to whom his/her rights accrue, and has exclusive control over management and profits, it should be viewed as possession with the nature of the source in the beginning of possession, unlike the case where it is believed that he/she has reverted to his/her rights among the possession of another owner.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Park Jae-woo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Defendant-Appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14888 decided May 1, 200

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na3325, 3326 Decided September 11, 1981

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Plaintiff-Appellant Park Jae-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant is examined.

According to the court below's lawful determination, the real estate in this case was originally owned by the deceased non-party 1. The deceased non-party 1 and his children were also dead without death, and no heir exists due to the death of the deceased non-party 2 on August 10, 1950. As such, the property should be reverted to three persons including the plaintiff who purchased the above non-party 1. However, according to the above non-party 1's death and the court below's decision that it was inappropriate for the deceased non-party 1 to have held the ownership transfer registration as the deceased non-party 2 (at that time, the deceased non-party 1's wife) to believe that it was the deceased non-party 1's heir or the right holder of the above non-party 1's possession of the real estate, and that it was inappropriate for the court below to have held the ownership transfer registration as the owner of the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1 to whom it had been held for more than 10 years since its commencement.

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 Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young