At the time of possession of the person who believed that the sold real estate is the property devolving upon the State and entered into a contract for the disposition of devolving property with the State

From the date when the purchaser of the property devolving upon the State completes the repayment of the price due, the possession of the remaining portion shall be deemed to be the possession independently. Furthermore, even if the sale real property is not the property devolving upon the State, if the purchaser believed that the real property devolving upon the State is the property devolving upon the State and entered into a contract for the redemption of the property devolving upon the State, it shall be deemed that the purchaser frequently occupied the real property as from the time when the redemption of the price is completed.

Article 245(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Korea

Busan District Court Decision 92Na15717 delivered on June 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In selling any property devolving upon the State, the purchaser of the property devolving upon the State has a duty to manage the property for the Government, which is the owner of the property, until the Government takes over the ownership of the property. Thus, the possession for this management cannot be viewed as the possession with the intention to hold the property independently. However, even if the sale real property is not the property devolving upon the State, if the purchaser believed that the property devolving upon the State is the property devolving upon the State and entered into a contract for the payment with the State with the property devolving upon the State, it shall be deemed that the purchaser frequently occupied the property as from the time when the redemption of the price is completed (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da27259, 27266, Apr. 28, 1992; 63Da1045, Jun. 16, 1964).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the land of this case was originally owned by the defendant on July 27, 1976 that the ownership transfer registration was completed with the defendant on July 27, 1976, and the plaintiff had been continuously residing on the land of this case since around 1924 and continued to reside on the ground of this case. The plaintiff knew that the land of this case was owned by the non-party company on March 31, 1956 that it was about 74 square meters ( Address omitted) and was about 3,200 Won at the time from the defendant, and paid the price in full on September 28, 1963. Thus, the court below was just in finding that the plaintiff did not know that the land of this case was owned by the non-party company as above ( Address omitted) and did not have any choice until the payment was paid in full, but it did not have any error in the law as to the possession of the land of this case from the non-party company on September 28, 1963.

On the other hand, if a third party acquires real estate from the owner before the completion of the acquisition by transfer and completes the registration, the possessor may not assert the completion of the acquisition by transfer against the third party. However, the registration in the name of the defendant with respect to the land of this case was made before the completion date of the acquisition by transfer, and further, the reason why the ownership of the land of this case was changed during the process of the acquisition by transfer before the completion date of the acquisition by transfer cannot be deemed as the cause of suspending the acquisition by transfer, and it cannot be said that the occupant’s autonomous possession is converted to the possession by transfer or is not a

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)