Requirements for recognition of intention of possession which is the content of autonomous possession

The intention of possession, which is the contents of possession with intention to own, may be recognized in cases where the owner is determined according to the nature of the title of possession, or the possessor expresses his/her intention to own.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da945 delivered on August 30, 1974

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na769 delivered on November 30, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

The Supreme Court held that the intention of possession, which is the content of the possession with the intention of possession, may be recognized in cases where the owner or the possessor decided in accordance with the nature of the title of possession or expressed the intention of possession to the owner. However, in the same purport, it is difficult to conclude that the original judgment was erroneous by lack of evidence to recognize the Plaintiff’s independent possession, and in so doing, it cannot be recognized that the other land of the argument is included in the subject matter of sale at issue, and it is difficult to conclude that there was an error of omission of judgment or omission of reasoning, and that there was no illegality of the theory of lawsuit, since the evidence of lawsuit was not all rejected.

In conclusion, unlike the judgment in the original judgment, the argument that the Plaintiff returned to the inspection on the premise that the Plaintiff has an independent possession, unlike the judgment in the original judgment, return to what is or without merit, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)