[소유권이전등기말소등][집24(1)민,27;공1976.3.15.(532) 8975]
Matters to be examined prior to the presumption of possession as an independent possession by a person who cultivates the land under a small contract of lawsuit as a matter of course.
Since the non-party who has occupied the land by means of a small contract with the owner of the real estate is an owner of the land, the possession is deemed to be an owner of the land. Therefore, if the possession is deemed to be an owner of the land by means of a new owner or an expression of intent to own the owner, unlike the previous possession, the determination of whether the possession was made by the owner of the land or by the owner of the land should be made, and it cannot be presumed as an owner of the land as a matter of course, and the fact that the land was purchased at the same time as the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act and
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee
Monobs
Seoul High Court Decision 74Na621 delivered on December 20, 1974
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The judgment of the court below is justified. Since the non-party 1, the father of the defendant's 6th anniversary of the enforcement date of the Farmland Reform Act, the non-party 2, who was the non-party 1, cultivated the land under a small contract entered into between the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 6, and notified that the non-party 1, who was the non-party 2, purchased the land to 9th of June 21, 194, purchased the land from the plaintiff 1, and the non-party 2, who was the non-party 1, was not entitled to the non-party 1, to whom the non-party 9 was the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who was the non-party 6's father, was not entitled to the non-party 1, the non-party 9, who was the non-party 1, to whom the non-party 1, was the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 9.
2. As determined by the judgment of the court below, if the non-party's salary class occupied the land as a result of a small contract with the plaintiff, it is clear that it occupied the land, and if it is viewed as an independent possession as an element for prescriptive acquisition, it shall be judged whether it is a new owner or an expression of intent to own the owner, unlike the previous possession, and it shall not be presumed as an independent possession as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da2048 delivered on October 25, 1967), and the fact that the land is purchased at the same time as the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act and it is distributed to the non-party, the original owner's possession is not converted into an independent possession (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da2755 delivered on February 23, 197). Accordingly, the court below's argument that the non-party's assertion that the non-party's land was purchased with the intention of purchasing the land on the ground that it did not constitute an independent possession of the defendant's assertion that it did not constitute an unlawful purport of pleading and the non-party's assertion.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)