[토지소유권이전등기말소][공1992.1.1.(911),101]
가. 부동산 등기부시효취득의 요건인 점유와 무과실에 관한 입증책임의 소재나. 부동산 매수인의 거래상 주의의무와 부동산의 매수인이 매도인 명의로 된 등기를 믿고 샀다고 하여 이것만 가지고 그 점유에 대하여 과실이 없다고 할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
A. In order for a person registered as an owner of real estate to acquire ownership by prescription, he/she must occupy the ownership without negligence for ten years from the time of possession, and the burden of proof of possession and negligence shall be borne by the person who asserts the prescriptive acquisition.
나. 부동산을 매수하는 사람으로서는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 매도인이 권리자인지 여부를 알아보아야 할 것이므로 이를 알아보았더라면 매도인이 무권리자임을 알 수 있었을 것임에도 그와 같은 조사를 하지 아니하였다면 부동산의 점유에 대하여 과실이 없다고 할 수 없고 매도인 명의로 된 등기를 믿고 샀다고 하여 이것만 가지고 과실이 없다고 할 수 없다.
A. Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act / A. Article 245 of the Civil Act
A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1866 Decided July 9, 1985 (Gong1985, 1108) (Gong1990, 2271) decided October 16, 1990 (Gong1990, 2271) 90Da13178 Decided February 12, 1991 (Gong191, 974)
Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant from among the Jyang-sang Pak-sang-sa
Defendant 1 and one other, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Jeonju District Court Decision 89Na1042 delivered on June 27, 1991
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. In light of the records, the court below's reasoning cannot be deemed as a violation of the rules of evidence preparation or fact-finding, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the prescriptive acquisition of real estate ownership.
In order for a person registered as an owner of real estate to acquire ownership by prescription, he shall possess the real estate without the intention of 10 years as owner, and the burden of proof of possession and negligence shall be the person who asserts the prescriptive acquisition. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize the above possession by Nonparty 2 only with the testimony of Nonparty 1 by the lower court, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Defendants continued to possess the real estate with the intention of ownership as owner without the negligence, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendants continued to own the real estate as owner. Thus, the testimony of Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4 by the lower court cannot be deemed as sufficient evidence to acknowledge the above facts.
부동산을 매수하는 사람으로서는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 매도인이 권리자인지 여부를 알아보아야 할 것이고, 이를 알아보았더라면 매도인이 무권리자임을 알 수 있었을 것임에도 그와 같은 조사를 하지 아니하였다면 부동산의 점유에 대하여 과실이 없다고 할 수 없고 ( 당원 1990.10.16. 선고 90다카16792 판결 참조), 매도인 명의로 된 등기를 믿고 샀다고 하여 이것만 가지고 과실이 없다고 할 수 없다.
2. The court below is just in rejecting the defendants' defense of ratification, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the judgment of the court below or the omission of judgment on the evidence affecting the conclusion of the judgment on this part of the judgment. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against this part of the judgment.
Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.
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 on the bench.
Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)