[1] In a case where a purchaser of land acquires possession of the land for the purpose by a sales contract, whether the presumption of possession with autonomy can be reversed merely because it constitutes the sale of the land of another person (negative with qualification)

[2] Where the actual area of land subject to sale considerably exceeds the area entered in the public register, the nature of the purchaser's possession of the excess (=the owner's 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 93Da1886 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3065), Supreme Court Decision 95Da53768 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1349), Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Da37661 delivered on March 16, 200 (Gong200Sang, 962) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da32878 delivered on November 10, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2843), Supreme Court Decision 98Da62046 delivered on May 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 199Ha, 1258), Supreme Court Decision 2004Da629494 delivered on May 24, 2004)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 2005Na9528 decided July 7, 2006

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where the purchaser of land acquires the possession of the land for the purpose by a sales contract, even if it is impossible for the purchaser to acquire the ownership immediately due to the purchase and sale of the land of another person, it cannot be readily concluded that the purchaser obtained the possession on the basis of the title which appears to have no intention to own by the nature of the possessor, and unless special circumstances are proved, such as purchase with the knowledge that the purchaser did not have the right to dispose of the land, the presumption of possession with the intent to own by the purchaser cannot be said to be broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da1886, Oct. 12, 1993; 95Da53768, Mar. 22, 1996). Since a person who intends to purchase real estate enters into a sales contract after confirming the ownership relationship and size of the land for the purpose of sale prior to the conclusion of the sales contract, if the area of the land for the sale exceeds the area on the public register, it shall be deemed that the seller acquired the ownership of the land for over 198.

2. 기록에 의하면, 원고가 매수하였다는 통영시 한산면 용호리 (지번 생략) 토지(답)는 그 공부상 면적이 585㎡인데, 원고가 전 매도인으로부터 이전받아 점유·경작하는 토지에는 위 토지 중 기록 153쪽의 감정도 표시 ㉰ 부분 506㎡ 외에, 피고 소유의 이 사건 토지(위 같은리 785-3) 중 같은 도면 표시 ㉯ 부분 19㎡, 소외 1 소유인 같은 리 (지번 생략) 중 같은 도면 표시 ㉳ 부분 11㎡, 소외 2 소유인 같은 리 (지번 생략) 중 같은 도면 표시 ㉵ 부분 36㎡, 국가 소유인 같은 리 (지번 생략) 도로 중 같은 도면 표시 113㎡ 등이 더 포함되어 있고 그 면적 합계는 685㎡에 이르는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 사정이 이러하다면 원고가 이전받아 점유하는 토지의 면적이 원고가 매수한 토지의 공부상 면적을 상당히 초과하는 경우에 해당한다고 할 것이므로 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이 사건 토지 중 위 ㉯ 부분에 대한 원고의 점유는 그 권원의 성질상 타주점유에 해당하는 것으로 보아야 할 것이다.

Nevertheless, without examining whether there are such special circumstances as above, the court below determined that the Plaintiff’s possession of the above (B) portion of the land in this case is the autonomous possession. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on autonomous possession, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)