logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.09.07 2015다217430
부당이득금
Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If the nature of the source of possessory right of real estate is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, and such presumption shall also apply to cases where the State or a local government, which is the managing body of cadastral records, etc.

In addition, even if the possessor asserts the right of possession, such as the sale or donation, but this is not recognized, the presumption of possession with the sole reason is reversed or the possession is not deemed as the possession with the intention of possession.

(2) The State, etc. is not obligated to submit documents regarding the acquisition procedure of land for which the completion of the acquisition by prescription is claimed. Therefore, even if the State, etc. failed to submit documents regarding the acquisition procedure of land for which the completion of the acquisition by prescription is claimed, the presumption of self-ownership by the State, etc. cannot be readily denied if the State, etc. cannot be ruled out to have lawfully acquired the ownership due to the acquisition procedure of land for public use as at the time of the commencement of possession, taking into account the following: (a) the details and purpose of the possession; (b) whether the State, etc., made efforts to exercise the ownership on the cadastral record, etc. after the commencement of possession; and (c) the use or disposal of other divided land; and (d) the relationship between the use or disposal of the divided land.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94731, 94748 Decided March 27, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94731, 94748). 2. The lower court did not submit all materials to the Defendant regarding the Defendant’s defense for the acquisition of prescription of possession on the ship (B) that connects each point of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 6 square meters attached to the lower judgment among the land T (hereinafter “T”) B, Gyeongnam-gun, Inc. (hereinafter “instant land”).

arrow