Whether it can be asserted against a third party purchaser who purchased real estate for the purpose before the expiration of the prescription period, but completed registration after the expiration of the prescription period (negative)

Even if a third party purchaser purchased a site unregistered real estate before the completion of the prescriptive acquisition by prescription, if the third party did not complete the registration of ownership transfer on the site before the completion of the prescriptive acquisition by prescription, and if the third party has completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the third party purchaser after the expiration of the prescriptive acquisition period, he/she shall be deemed to have lawfully acquired the ownership of the site only after the expiration of the period. Therefore, the third party purchaser cannot be deemed a party to change the rights and obligations due to the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, and therefore, unless the third party purchaser has completed the registration of ownership transfer

Article 245(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da554 Decided May 28, 1968 (No. 16-2, No. 99), Supreme Court Decision 76Da242 Decided March 22, 197 (Gong1989, No. 745) Decided April 11, 1989 (Gong1989, No. 745) Supreme Court Decision 88Da843 Decided April 11, 1989 (Gong1989, No. 745), Supreme Court Decision 90Da8411, 8428 Decided January 15, 1991 (Gong191, No. 7366)

Park Jong-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and five others (Attorneys Kim Sang-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Radern type

Gwangju District Court Decision 95Na6379, 6386 delivered on September 19, 1996

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on November 8, 1993, the fact that the registration of ownership preservation was completed on the non-party Kim Tae-tae's second to 128 square meters in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si (hereinafter "the site in this case") was not disputed between the parties, the site in this case is presumed to be owned by the deceased Kim Tae-tae, while the defendant (the non-party plaintiff; hereinafter "the defendant") owned the ground in the attached Form (A) of the judgment of the court below among the site in this case, and occupied the site in the ground in this case when the building in this case was owned by the brick Cho Jong-si's ground in the attached Form (A) and the warehouse and the toilet (hereinafter "the building in this case"). The deceased Kim Tae-dong died on August 10, 1995, and the plaintiff (the plaintiff's counter-party and the plaintiff) is its heir, barring any special circumstance, the defendant dismissed the defendant's claim against the plaintiffs in this case for the following reasons that the plaintiff's right to acquire the site in this case.

In determining the Defendant’s counterclaim for prescriptive acquisition and counterclaim, the lower court: (a) first, sold the instant land to Nonparty 2, who was the owner of Nonparty 349 square meters adjacent to the instant land, and resided on the instant land; and (b) sold the said 349 site and Saturdays to Nonparty 2, who purchased the instant land on or around 1924; and (c) donated the instant land to Nonparty 2, who was the owner of the instant land to Nonparty 3, on or around March 1942, which was the owner of the instant land, for a period of 1969 square meters; and (d) the Defendant, who was the owner of the instant land, sold the instant land to Nonparty 2, who was the owner of the instant land to Nonparty 3, who was the owner of the instant land at KRW 349,00,00,000; and (e) sold the ownership of the instant land to Nonparty 1, who was the owner of the instant land at KRW 9,000,00,000.

Furthermore, on November 8, 1993, after the Defendant acquired the instant site by prescription, the registration of ownership preservation was completed on the instant site on November 8, 1993, and the deceased Kim Tae-tae was a new interested party after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiffs who succeeded to the deceased Kim Tae-tae and that the acquisition by prescription cannot be asserted by the acquisition by prescription. As to the Plaintiffs’ assertion, even if a person who had de facto ownership on the land remaining unregistered at the time of the completion of the acquisition by prescription due to possession of the land completed the registration of ownership preservation in his name after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, such person cannot be deemed as a new interested party after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, as it is not a registration of change in ownership, and therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the premise that the deceased Kim Kim-tae

2. However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the following facts are as follows: (a) Nos. 2 (No. 2), (b) No. 3-2, and (c) No. 4-2 (U.S.), and (b) No. 351 square meters in the name of Non-party 28 on May 28, 1915; (b) No. 351 square meters in the name of Non-party 351 square meters in the name of Non-party 399 square meters in the same Ri 359 square meters in the name of Non-party 1, 1993; and (c) No. 351 and 399 square meters in the name of the non-party 2, who had not completed the registration of ownership transfer on the non-party 31, Jul. 21, 1993; and (d) the Defendant cannot be found to have completed the registration of ownership transfer on the non-party 1, 2991 square meters in its name.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant, the prescriptive acquisitor, was unable to oppose the deceased Kim Tae, who acquired ownership after the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, on the ground that the registration under the deceased Kim Tae-tae’s name is not a registration of change in ownership, cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the registration and the effect of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, and it is obvious that this affected the judgment. Therefore, the part

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)