[토지소유권이전등기][공1996.2.1.(3),344]
In a case where a title trust is terminated after the completion of the acquisition by prescription for the title trust real estate and the registration of transfer thereof is completed and the title holder transfers the title to the truster, whether it is impossible to claim the acquisition by prescription for the title trust.
After the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of real estate held in title, if the title of title is terminated, and the title of title of title is transferred from the title trustee to the title trustee after the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of the real estate held in title, there is no change in the internal ownership of the real estate, but there is a change in the title of title, and the title of title is changed externally in the title of title, and the title of title of title is merely treated as the ownership in the external relationship between the title trustee and the title trustee, and the obligation to register to the title holder at the time of the completion of the statute of limitations is not externally to the title trustee, but to the title trustee at the time of the completion of the statute of limitations. As such, transfer of the registration from the external title trustee who was not treated as the owner from the title trustee should be considered as a full new change in rights in the external relationship such as the relationship with the possessor of the statute of limitations for the acquisition by prescription, regardless of whether the title truster’s acquisition by title is based on anti-social action actively involved in the
Articles 103 [title trust] and 245(1) of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff
In the course of search for the scopical scoptyphals
Gwangju District Court Decision 94Na9609 delivered on July 27, 1995
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
After the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of real estate held in title, if the title of title is terminated, and the title of title of title is transferred from the title trustee to the title trustee, there is no change in the internal ownership of the real estate, but there is a change in the title of title, externally, the title of title of title is changed, and the title of title is merely treated as the owner in the external relationship with the external relationship with the title trustee, and the title trustee is not an external person but a title trustee. As such, transfer of the registration to the title truster who is not treated as the owner from the external person who is the external title of title is considered as the owner in the external relationship with the possessor of the statute of limitations, etc. Thus, the title truster’s transfer of the registration to the title truster who is not treated as the owner should be considered as a complete new change in rights in the external relationship with the possessor of the statute of limitations, etc. Thus, separate from the case where the title truster’s acquisition is based on anti-social act actively participating in the act of breach of trust by the person liable for registration, or there is no other cause invalidation after the acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the prescriptive acquisition as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)