[1] In a case where the presumption of possession by the occupant of the building site without permission was reversed, where the presumption of possession by the occupant of the building site without permission was reversed

[2] The case holding that it was known that part of the building site registered in an area where an unauthorized building was isolated was possessed without the title of possession because the purchaser of the building site constitutes State-owned land

[1] In a case where a building on a parcel of land, which is a State-owned land, starts with a building without permission, and a house, etc. was completely formed except for roads, and the ownership of the local government was transferred thereafter, and the residents living in one unit of the land were required to purchase or invest the State-owned land, while adopting the articles of association of the redevelopment association at the residents' general meeting, the occupants of the State-owned land were required to purchase or invest the land. If there is a genuine fact that there is a difference between the private land occupied by the local government several times, then the persons who acquired the building without permission and occupied the land and all the occupants who occupied the land without permission can be deemed to have occupied the part of the land, which is the State-owned land with the knowledge of the fact that there is no legal or other legal requirements such as the acquisition of ownership by nature at the time of commencing the occupation of the land. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the presumption that the present occupant and all occupants occupied the land as the State-owned land with the knowledge that there is no such legal requirements.

[2] The case holding that if a land occupant did not purchase a building without permission, but registered on the building management ledger and completed registration of ownership preservation, and the part of the land owned by a local government is also included in the site, if the land owned by a local government is located in a state-owned land, the land occupant or the former occupant could have occupied it as part of the building site even though he knows that he did not have the right to possess it at the time of commencement of possession.

[1] Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da54016 delivered on August 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3122), Supreme Court Decision 95Da41208, 41215 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 508), Supreme Court Decision 96Da19161 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2850), Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2501)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Attorney Jeon Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea and one other (Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na31521 delivered on November 8, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) Nonparty 1, on October 20, 1968, purchased the same part of the same 20 square meters as 13 square meters and 24 square meters; (b) Nonparty 2, 3, and 162 square meters of the same 432 square meters; and (c) Nonparty 2, 3, 36 square meters of the same 24 square meters of the same 26 square meters of the same 32 square meters; and (d) Nonparty 1, 2, 362, and 47 square meters of the same 34 square meters of the same 24 square meters of the same site; and (e) Nonparty 2, on May 198, 207, occupied the same part of the same 27 square meters of the same 322 square meters of the same site; and (e) Nonparty 2, on December 20, 1971, deemed the same part of the same 3725 square meters.

2. The possessor is presumed to possess the real estate with the intention of ownership, but it is proved that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission with the knowledge of the absence of the legal requirements such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the possessor does not have an intention to reject another person's ownership and to occupy it. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intention of ownership has been broken (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625, Aug. 21, 1997).

According to the evidence revealed in the oral argument of this case, it was real estate owned by the defendant in Jung-gu, Seoul, and 37 in Jung-gu, Seoul, before dividing each of the land into the land of this case. However, since the end of the 1950s, the house was completely formed except for the roads naturally created since the late 1960s, and since the late 1, 1973, the house was designated as a housing improvement development area. The remaining land except for the above land 432-2157 of 432-2 of the land of this case was transferred to the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The residents of the above land were aware of the fact that the occupants of the above land were to purchase and invest the land by the redevelopment association's articles of incorporation on February 15, 1986, and that the residents of the Republic of Korea were to possess the above land without permission, and that there was no other reason to possess the land from the plaintiff 13 without permission.

In addition, according to the above materials, Plaintiff 2 did not purchase an unauthorized building, but entered on the building management ledger on December 29, 1971, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on September 16, 1972 by purchasing and registering the same building site in the same 372-830 and 372-2-3 of the same Act, which is part of the building site. It can be known that the above part of the land owned by Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City was included in the site. However, if the land was occupied by an unauthorized building on the state-owned land as seen earlier, the above Plaintiff and its former occupant might have occupied it as part of the building site by knowing the fact that they did not have the right to possess.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of intention to own in possession and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment without examining the above point. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

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

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)