1. In full view of the evidence in its holding, the court below acknowledged the fact that the transfer registration of ownership was made under the name of the non-party Busan Metropolitan City on January 22, 1918 with respect to the land (the "land in this case" omitted) of Busan Seo-gu, Busan, and the transfer registration was made under the name of the defendant on the ground of succession (the succession under Article 5 of the Local Autonomy Act) around February 25, 1989, and that the transfer registration was made under the name of the defendant on the ground that the transfer registration was not completed on May 1, 198, and that the plaintiff from January 14, 1965 to the expiration date of the acquisition of the ownership transfer registration on the land in this case by the non-party 15 square meters (the "land in this case"), as the land in this case was occupied and used on the land in this case as the site of the non-party 3 residential house and the quasi-story warehouse, and on the basis of such finding, the plaintiff did not have any other obligation to acquire the ownership of this case.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

A third party who, after the expiration of the period of acquisition of real estate ownership, has acquired the relevant real estate and completed the registration, or who cannot claim the completion of acquisition by acquiring the relevant real estate under the provisions of law, shall be limited to a third party who has a new interest after the expiration of the period of acquisition, and who is worth protecting in order not to impair the safety of the transaction of real estate and the function of the registration system. As such, in a case where a new local government acquires the relevant real estate by succeeding the affairs and property of the previous local government under Article 5(1) of the Local Autonomy Act due to the change of district, abolition, establishment, division, or merger of local government after the expiration of the period of acquisition, the acquisition of the relevant real estate shall be irrelevant to the function of the safety of the transaction of real estate or the registration system. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the new local government has a new interest after the expiration of the period of acquisition by acquisition, and that it constitutes a third party who is worth protecting the said legal interest.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below held that the defendant who acquired the ownership of the land in the dispute in this case due to the change of district of a local government or the abolition, establishment, or division of a local government constitutes a third party who acquired the real estate after the completion of the prescription period for possession, and that the plaintiff, the possessor, is not entitled to assert the completion of the prescription period, and thereby did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of a third party who acquired a new interest

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)