A. Although the judgment of the deceased as the defendant became final and conclusive in form, the judgment is null and void and the res judicata does not occur.

B. The purport of Article 245(2) of the Civil Act is that Article 245(2) of the same Act requires that the same shall apply to the same period of possession as the period registered as the owner of real estate, and

A. Although the judgment of the deceased as the defendant became final and conclusive in form, the judgment is null and void and the res judicata does not occur.

B. The purport of paragraph (2) of this Article is that the period of registration as the owner of real estate and the period of possession are the same as that of the owner of the real estate and the period of possession are ten years (defensing by the Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2176 Decided December 26, 89).

Article 204(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 245(2) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4289No155,156 delivered on May 17, 1956, Supreme Court Decision 67Da752 delivered on July 16, 1968

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others (Attorney Don-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 68Na352 delivered on February 13, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the decision of the court below which made it consistent with the defendants' assertion that the non-party 1 purchased the forest land from the non-party 2's heir non-party 3 on September 1, 1947 and the defendant 1 purchased the forest land from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 on July 28, 1954. The result of non-party 4, non-party 5, and non-party 6's testimony cannot be the evidence supporting the defendants' assertion, and it is not erroneous in the rules of evidence selection in the decision of the court below since the result of non-party 1's examination of the lawsuit cannot be the evidence supporting the defendants' assertion, and it is obvious that the defendant's statement of the substitute (Evidence No. 2) ordering the registration of the transfer of the ownership of the deceased non-party 2 on the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 is non-party 2, and the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1 to the non-party 5's judgment of this case is null and void.

In addition, as to the defendants' assertion that they continued possession of the forest land as owned for twenty (20) years, the court below rejected the witness's testimony lawfully at the original time when the possession of the defendant's assertion was commenced or the fact of succession to possession was consistent with the defendant's assertion, and it is reasonable to interpret that "in case where the registered owner of the real estate has occupied the real estate in good faith and without negligence, it shall acquire ownership" as stated in Article 245 (2) of the Civil Code, "at the time when he occupied the real estate in good faith and without negligence, with the intention of ownership for ten (10) years". It is reasonable to interpret that this provision requires that the ownership should be ten (10) years as at the same time as the time the period registered as the owner of the real estate and the period of possession was the same (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da752, Jul. 16, 1968).

The defendants' grounds of appeal are without merit.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)