Whether a person who acquired such real estate from the owner and completed the registration of ownership transfer is liable to register ownership transfer due to the completion of the prescriptive acquisition.

A person liable for the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the period of prescription is the owner at the time of the completion of the period of prescription, and even if a person who acquired the real estate from the owner and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the knowledge of the completion of the period of prescription, barring special circumstances, such as implied or explicit agreement between the owner by accepting the owner’s registration of ownership transfer and performing the obligation of ownership transfer

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant-appellant

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Busan District Court Decision 92Na1096, 11005 decided September 2, 1993

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter only referred to as the Plaintiff) attorney are examined.

1. Even if the prescriptive acquisition acknowledged otherwise as alleged by the parties as to the time of commencement of possession, this cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of pleading (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da384 delivered on August 30, 1974).

After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below determined that the land in the dispute in this case was completed by prescription on April 16, 1981 after the lapse of twenty years from April 16, 1961 when the deceased non-party 1 commenced possession. In light of relevant evidence and the legal principles as seen above, the court below's fact-finding and decision are just and there are no errors in violation of the rules of evidence or the principle of pleading, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's acquisition by prescription was completed on February 28, 1984, after the completion of acquisition by prescription, that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case on February 28, 1984 and completed the registration of ownership transfer. As to the land of this case on April 28, 1984, the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff could not assert the completion of acquisition by prescription against the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case on April 16, 1981, the plaintiff could be presumed to have acquired the ownership by sale after the completion of acquisition by prescription, and the plaintiff could not assert the completion of acquisition by prescription against the newly-owner, unless there were special circumstances, the plaintiff's father and the non-party 2 had been registered as the ownership of the non-party on the land of this case on the land of this case on which he had acquired the ownership of the above part of the land on his own by acquiring the ownership of this case on the land of this case from the non-party 1.

In short, the above decision of the court below seems to have purported to the effect that the plaintiff succeeded to the obligation to transfer ownership on April 16, 1981 to the non-party 2's land of this case due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription, the defendant may claim the acquisition by prescription against the plaintiff who acquired the ownership of the above land after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and that the plaintiff is obliged to implement the procedure for transfer registration for ownership due to the completion

However, a person liable for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescription period is the owner at the time of the completion of the prescription period, and even if a person is aware of the completion of the acquisition period and completed the registration of ownership transfer, barring special circumstances such as implied or explicit agreement between the owner by accepting and performing the above obligation between the owner, it cannot be deemed that he/she succeeds to the above obligation, barring special circumstances such as:

However, the above facts acknowledged by the court below in the instant case are difficult to view that the Plaintiff succeeded to the obligation to transfer ownership on the land of Nonparty 2 for the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period (whether or not the Plaintiff can be deemed to have received the ownership transfer of the said land even after being aware that Nonparty 1 acquired the land of this case by prescriptive acquisition) by examining the records, it is difficult to find any other evidence to acknowledge it.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the succession of the obligation to transfer ownership registration or failing to meet the reasons, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the court below determined that the plaintiff succeeded to the obligation to transfer ownership registration for the non-party 2's land of this case on April 16, 1981.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)