Whether the possession of a seller after the sale of land is changed to that of a third party (affirmative with qualification)

The possession of a seller who sells real estate to another person and is liable to deliver it is changed to another person’s possession, barring special circumstances. Therefore, even if a seller agreed not only to receive the full amount of the purchase price of land but also to deliver land in return for the payment of the remainder at the time of a sales contract, the seller completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the buyer before the seller is paid the remainder, and then the buyer files a lawsuit seeking the payment of the remainder, the seller cannot be deemed to have continuously occupied the land with the same intent as the owner even after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer.

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

Supreme Court Decision 92Da26468, 26475 delivered on December 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 596), Supreme Court Decision 92Da43975 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2582), Supreme Court Decision 94Da51871 delivered on May 23, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 230), Supreme Court Decision 94Da505, 50601 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2321)

Lee-soo (Attorney Hyoung-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Kim Jong-dong (Attorney Kim Jong-woo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 96Na8642 delivered on December 12, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The possession of a seller who sells real estate to another person and is liable to deliver it shall be changed to the possession of another owner, except in extenuating circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da505, 50601, Jun. 28, 1996; 92Da26468, 26475, Dec. 24, 1992).

The court below held that even if the plaintiff did not receive the full amount of the purchase price of the land of this case and agreed to deliver the land of this case to the purchaser at the time of the purchase and sale contract, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer before receiving the remainder payment, and then the purchaser files a lawsuit seeking the payment of the remainder. In light of the fact that the plaintiff entered into a purchase and sale contract with the purchaser and completed the registration of ownership transfer following the purchase and sale contract, it cannot be viewed that the land of this case continues to be occupied with the same intent as the owner, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the possession of the land of this case, such as the argument. There is no reason to

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)