In the case of possession and reliance on a part of the adjoining site so purchased, the presumption of possession

Even if a person claims that he/she had occupied an adjacent site with the knowledge that he/she was a part of the adjacent site, it cannot be presumed that he/she has occupied the adjacent site with the nature of the title.

Article 197 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Song-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na475 delivered on June 9, 1977

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the land of this case was originally the land partitioned from 849 square meters in Seongdong-gu ( Address 1 omitted), and the above land was the land partitioned from 849 square meters in 194, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of Non-party 1, Japan as of August 9, 1945, but Non-party 2 purchased it from the above Japan before that date, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on August 30, 1945 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the above sale on May 15, 194, and thereafter, the above non-party 2 did not change the actual right to the land even if it was not confirmed under the Act No. 120 on September 22, 1948, and the above non-party 2 purchased the above land from the above Japanese person and completed the registration of ownership transfer from the above Japanese person, and therefore, it is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to be justified and justified.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below judged that there is no evidence to support the defendant's assertion that, around March 1956, the defendant occupied the land adjacent to the non-party at the time of purchasing 13 square meters from Seongdong-gu ( Address 2 omitted) and that the period of prescriptive acquisition has expired as of March 31, 1976 with the intention of possession since he knew that it was part of the land owned for twenty years since he had been occupied for 20 years, and that the above 13 square meters had been purchased, but it cannot be presumed that the defendant occupied the above 50 square meters as part of the above 13 square meters as the intention of possession. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the defendant occupied the above 50 square meters as the intention of possession in view of the nature of the source of title where he did not purchase the site, and therefore, it is necessary to prove that the defendant otherwise occupied the land as the intention of possession in view of the nature of the source of title. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as above.

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 Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)