The starting point of the commencement of possession in the acquisition of ownership due to possession shall not be decided by the claimant at his own discretion.

The starting point of the commencement of possession in the acquisition of ownership due to possession shall not be decided by the claimant at his own discretion.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Korea Electric Cable Corporation and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1925 delivered on April 2, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1925 delivered on April 2, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) We examine the second ground for appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney;

The plaintiff's assertion in the judgment below and the ground of appeal are as follows. In other words, from the time when the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's fleet, purchased from non-party 2 on December 26, 1938, the part of the land in this case, which was composed of the above discussion and the Hanbami, was known as a part of the above discussion and possessed as a peaceful and non-performance without fault, and it continued to cultivate the land in this case with the intention to own it as a part of the above discussion, after selling (the plaintiff's assertion at the original trial, the non-party 1, who was known as a part of the discussion at the above (the non-party 1, who was the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was the plaintiff's fleet, was aware of the ownership transfer registration of June 2, 1939).

Therefore, as alleged by the plaintiff, if the plaintiff's fleet occupied the part of the land of this case, which constitutes the above discussion and Han-Sami from the time of purchasing 3327 square meters as part of the above discussion and 3327 square meters, with its intention to own, and sold it to the non-party shipbuilding 6, 1939.2.6, unless there are other special circumstances, the whole of 3327 square meters above, including the land of this case, was sold, and if it has been continuously occupied after the sale, it cannot be deemed as the owner's possession, unless there are other special circumstances. Thus, it cannot be viewed as the owner's intention, which is the requirement for acquiring the ownership by the possession, even though it should continue to exist during the possession period, and even if it continued to occupy 3327 square meters after selling it to the above company as above, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal that it continued to possess the land of this case with the intention to own it in 1939.25 square meters, it is without merit.

(2) We examine the first ground for appeal as to the same ground for appeal.

According to the grounds of appeal and the facts alleged by the plaintiff at the court below, the above (1) land was also owned and cultivated on the side of the plaintiff continuously after sale of 3327 square meters of the above ( Address omitted) which was thought to be part of the land in addition to the above (hereinafter referred to as the above (hereinafter referred to as the "No. 1), and the plaintiff received farmland from the administrative office at that time as of June 24, 1948 under the above (No. 173) of the excessive government law (No. 173) and completed ownership transfer registration and completed reimbursement pursuant to the Special Act on Farmland and the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, at the time of receiving the above farmland distribution, the plaintiff cannot be viewed to have commenced possession of the above (No. 3327 square meters) as part of the above (No. 3327 square meters), and the part of the above (No. 4) which was alleged to be the starting point of the starting point by the new government court's decision that it did not change the occupation area of the above No. 16361 of farmland.

Therefore, the plaintiff's ground of appeal is groundless and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon