Whether the acquisition by prescription of real estate at the time of the Gu Residents Act is recognized as an acquisition by prescription pursuant to Article 245 of the Civil Act pursuant to Article 8 (1) of the Civil Code after the enforcement of the Civil Code.

The effect of the acquisition by prescription of real estate at the time of the law of the Gu residents is recognized even after the enforcement of the Civil Code pursuant to the proviso of Article 2 of the Addenda of the Civil Code, but it cannot be said that it is recognized as the acquisition by prescription pursuant to the provisions of this Article different requirements. Therefore, there is no room to apply

Article 245, Article 187 of the Civil Act, Article 16 of the Gu Residents Act, Article 2 proviso of the Regulations of the Civil Act, Article 8(1)

Kim Young-young et al.

E. Postal exchange

Busan District Court Decision 65Na149 delivered on May 31, 1965

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff's attorney is examined.

From this point of view, as stated in the original judgment, the plaintiffs did not own the farmland for which it was originally owned by the non-party 1, as it was after the plaintiffs purchased on July 29, 1947, and died on August 25, 1964, so the plaintiffs inherited and cultivated until now. As such, it is clearly stated that this belongs to the above Dol, as of July 29, 1957, the completion of short-term prescription period, and the prescriptive acquisition of one real estate belongs to the acquisition of things related to real estate under the provisions of law. However, in light of the fact that Article 245 of the Civil Act provides that the acquisition of real estate by prescription against the non-party 1, who was originally owned by the non-party 2, at the time of the enforcement of the Civil Act, was not based on the fact that the non-party 1, who was the owner of the farmland for which the above farmland was owned by the non-party 1, the court below did not have any error of law regarding the acquisition of prescription period under the provisions of Chapter 17.

Therefore, the decision on the second ground of appeal is omitted and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with the above-mentioned argument.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)