Whether it is presumed as an independent possession even in the case of purchasing and possessing a building with the knowledge that it was an unauthorized building on the land owned by another person.

In the case of prescriptive acquisition, possession means the possession with the intention to exercise the same control as the owner, i.e., the intention to hold the ownership, and the existence of such intention should be determined by the nature of the source of possession right, but even if the nature of the source of right is not clear, it is presumed that the purchaser is an independent possession. Thus, even if the purchaser knowingly purchased each building without permission on the land owned by another and occupied and used the said land as the site for the building, barring any special circumstance, barring special circumstance, the buyer’s possession should be deemed as the possession with the nature of the source

Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Defendant Choi Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Incheon District Court Decision 93Na5161 delivered on February 18, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the fact that the defendant owned each of the buildings of this case on the ground of the land of this case owned by four persons including the plaintiff, etc., and confirmed the fact that the defendant possessed the part of the dispute of this case on the ground of the land of this case, and determined as to the defendant's claim for the acquisition of prescription of the part of this case, and judged as to the defendant's claim for the above dispute of this case, since the defendant purchased each of the buildings of this case from the non-party on September 13, 1967, it can be recognized that the defendant possessed the above dispute of this case since he purchased each of the buildings of this case from the non-party on September 13, 1967. Thus, the defendant is presumed to have occupied the part of the dispute of this case as his intention to own it on the part of the land of this case, but the defendant purchased each of the buildings of this case from the non-party of this case with knowledge that it was owned by the State or Incheon Metropolitan City on the 1111st day.

However, in the case of acquisition by prescription, possession means possession with the intention to exercise the same control as the owner, and the existence or absence of such intention must be determined by the nature of the source of possession right, but it is presumed possession with the intention to hold it independently even if the nature of the source of right is not clear. Thus, even if each of the buildings purchased by the defendant was known that the building was constructed without permission on the land of this case owned by others, and the above dispute portion was occupied and used as the site for each of the buildings of this case, as stated by the court below, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the possession by the defendant constitutes possession with the intention to hold it autonomously (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da18327, Apr. 29, 1994; 92Da5075, Jan. 26, 1993; 92Da43654, Dec. 22, 1992).

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the possession with independence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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 Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)