Chang-hee

A school juristic person's private teaching institute (Attorney Han-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 64Na271 delivered on December 24, 1964

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's agent is examined.

However, the defendant's institute's preliminary claim that the plaintiff shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on January 3, 1956 with respect to the land of this case on the ground of the plaintiff's completion of prescription on January 3, 1956 is an indication of the preliminary claim, and it cannot be deemed that it did not indicate the purport of the claim because it did not indicate it separately under the title of the claim, and it cannot be said that the court below acknowledged the date of completion of prescription different from the date of the plaintiff's claim and recognized it as the date of completion of prescription.

In this case, it is reasonable that the appellate court recognized the judgment of the first instance to be unfair and made a self-determination on the case after cancellation by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the alteration of the original judgment according to the official example cannot be deemed to be erroneous because it did not use the expression, such as "the alteration of the original judgment". Therefore, all arguments can not be employed.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, even after examining the records in detail, it cannot be found that there is any reflective evidence which can be found that the plaintiff had occupied the original land in bad faith, following the presumption of good faith as an occupant, and that the plaintiff had occupied the original land in bad faith, and the court below also determined by evidence that "the plaintiff continued to cultivate the farmland in this case from the non-party beneficial to the non-party who was widely known at the time when the defendant was delegated with the authority to sell and purchase the farmland in this case by the defendant on February 2, 1946. The court below confirmed "the fact that the plaintiff was continuously cultivated after purchase" and held that such a person who purchased and delivered the land from the name holder on the register of the land ownership or his/her agent shall be deemed to have commenced possession without fault unless there is any special circumstance to recognize that it is reasonable for the seller to raise special doubt as to the title of the ownership in the register of land or his/her agent, and it shall not be admitted as an independent opinion

Accordingly, according to Articles 400, 395, 384, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, all participating judges are decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Judges Mag-do-Appellee (Presiding Judge)