[소유권이전등기말소][미간행]
Whether the completion of the period of prescription for acquisition of the registry requires that all of 10 years if the period of registration and the period of possession are the same (affirmative)
Article 245(2) of the Civil Act
Kim J. (Attorney Song-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Lee Jong-soo et al. (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 66Na196 delivered on March 3, 1967
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.
As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Defendants’ Attorney
According to the court below's decision, the court below held that the plaintiff was entitled to the ownership transfer registration under the above defendant's name, 13th to 17th to 13th to 13th to 17th to YY, Incheon, and the plaintiff was entitled to the ownership transfer registration under the above defendant's name on July 25, 1962. The plaintiff paid the price in full on July 29, 1963, the defendant Lee Jong-soo, 6th to 13th to 123th to 127th to 13th to 13th to 13th to 127th to the above defendant's name, due to the official error in the affairs of the public official, and there was no error in the court below's finding of facts that the above facts were not interfered with the above evidence and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the facts alleged in the court below's reasoning.
As to the ground of appeal No. 2.3
Article 245(2) of the Civil Act provides, “When a person registered as an owner of a real estate has occupied the real estate in good faith and openly with the intention of ownership for ten years, and without negligence, he/she shall acquire ownership.” This provision provides that the period registered as the owner of a real estate and the period of possession shall be ten years as in the same time as the time the owner of the real estate has possessed the real estate. Accordingly, the original judgment rejecting the assertion on the completion of the period of prescriptive acquisition is justifiable under the same judgment, and as seen above, the original judgment rejecting the assertion on the completion of the period of prescriptive acquisition is justifiable. Furthermore, as seen in the judgment on the former part of the judgment on each transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants, the theory
All arguments are without merit. Accordingly, all appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Marins (Presiding Justice)