(b) Whether only those who constructed a building on another's land can be deemed to have indicated the ownership and ownership of the land;

C. Voluntary selection of the starting point of the acquisition by prescription (negative)

(b) The fact that a person who occupied the land owned by another person without holding it on the ground alone constructed a building owned by him shall not be deemed to have expressed his intention to own the land.

(c) The starting point for the period of prescriptive acquisition shall not be determined at will differently from the starting point of possession.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on July 3, 1953, the court below rejected the plaintiff's principal claim against the defendant, the heir of the above deceased, seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the above non-party 1's future, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the above donation. However, according to the evidence of the court below, the above non-party 1, around July 1949, paid 30,00 won to the non-party 2 who was owned by the above deceased at the time as compensation for the payment of the above 30,00 won for the new illness treatment of the deceased, after acquiring the above land, and constructed a household building in order to live above the above 1953, and thereafter, it was found that the above land and the above above 10-party 1 had been occupied and sold to the plaintiff on March 15, 1973, and it was not recognized that the plaintiff acquired the above land from the above non-party 1 to the above 15-party 1's own right.

The decision of the court below can be accepted only when it decides by the nature of the title of possession or when the possessor expresses his intention to hold it against the owner. On the other hand, the decision of the court below recognizes that the above non-party 1 externally expressed his intention to hold it at the time of construction of the building on July 1953 and as the starting point of prescription. In light of this point, the court below determined that the above non-party 1 received the above land from the above non-party 2 on July 1949, the possession was the owner, and it cannot be viewed to have been returned to the owner from the time of the above building. On the other hand, on the other hand, it cannot be viewed that the above non-party 1 arbitrarily acquired the above land without the lapse of the prescription period since the non-party 1 expressed his intention to hold it as the owner at the time of the above building. On the other hand, the decision of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the acquisition of the above land by the non-party 1 on the other hand.

Therefore, the court below's judgment is reversed and remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court, which is the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, on the ground that there is a clear error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the inconsistent reasoning, incomplete reasoning, and the prescriptive acquisition of real estate.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)