[소유권이전등기말소][집17(2)민,031]
Cases recognizing the prescriptive acquisition of 10 years for real estate known to the property devolving upon the State;
A person who has occupied real estate erroneously treated as property devolving upon the State, in good faith and without negligence, from the State and without negligence, and has occupied the real estate in peace with the intention to own it for ten years after the transfer of ownership is transferred to the State, shall acquire the ownership by prescription.
Article 245(2) of the Civil Act
Korea Trucking Corporation
Republic of Korea and three others
Seoul High Court Decision 68Na829 delivered on October 11, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na829 delivered on October 11, 1968
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
According to the theory that a person who asserts the acquisition of prescription without fault was responsible for proving that he had not been negligent in the acquisition of the real estate at the beginning of his possession. As such, the court below was justified in holding that the acquisition of the real estate was not due to the acquisition of the real estate by the Defendant 1 and the transfer of the real estate by the Defendant 5, and that it was not due to the fact that the acquisition of the real estate by the Defendant 1 was not due to the fact that the acquisition of the real estate was not due to the acquisition of the real estate by the Defendant 5, and that it was not due to the fact that the ownership was not due to the acquisition of the real estate by the Defendant 1 and the transfer of the real estate by the Defendant 5, and that it was not due to the fact that the ownership was not due to the acquisition of the real estate by the Defendant 1 and the transfer of the real estate by the Defendant 1 and the acquisition of the real estate by the Defendant 1 was not due to the fact that the ownership was not due to the acquisition of the real estate by the Defendant 1 and the sale of the real estate.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)