Whether it can be deemed that only another owner who has completed a registration of ownership transfer in his name has been converted into possession independently (negative)

In order to convert the possession into the possession with the intention of possession independently, the intention of the owner shall be expressed to the person who has commenced the possession with the intention of possession again on the basis of a new title, or who has occupied it to the owner, and it shall not be deemed that the owner has converted into the possession with the intention of possession independently by expressing the intention of ownership only after the owner has completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name

Articles 245 and 197 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1256 delivered on October 18, 1966 (No. 14 third citizen157) decided April 11, 1989 (Gong1989,738)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1 and one other Plaintiffs (Attorney Park Hong-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff 1 and 9 others, Defendants Park Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 91Na1216, 1223 decided October 9, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and it is difficult to conclude that the fact-finding by the deceased non-party 1 is followed to the fact-finding by the court below and the land of this case is legally donated.

There is no reason to dispute the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court.

On the second ground for appeal

In the case of the acquisition by prescription, the intention of possession, which is the requirement for the possession with intention of possession, must be determined by the nature of the source of possessory right which objectively causes the acquisition by possession. If the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have possession with intention of possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. However, if it is acknowledged that the possessor commenced the possession in order to manage another's real estate by proving that the possessor is the owner of another's real estate

According to the records, the fact-finding by the court below that the above non-party 1 managed each of the lands of this case for the deceased non-party 2 and his wife and his father and the plaintiffs, and if the facts were as recognized by the court below, the possession of each of the lands of this case of this case by the above non-party 1 cannot be deemed as the possession by the nature of the title, and therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's motion for the acquisition by prescription is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the acquisition by prescription, such as the theory of lawsuit.

On the third ground for appeal

In order to convert the possession into the possession with the intention to own it again with the intention to own it again on the new title, or to the person who has occupied it to own it, the owner shall not be deemed to have been converted into the possession with the intention to own it solely by another owner after completing the registration of ownership transfer under his name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 66Da1256, Oct. 18, 1966; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu95, Apr. 11, 1989). Thus, the court below was just in rejecting the Defendants’ claim for the acquisition of the statute of limitations on the register, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no merit in the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)