In cases where the landowner changes after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, whether the completion of the acquisition by prescription can be claimed by using the time of change in ownership as the starting point for new acquisition by prescription (affirmative)

A person who asserts the acquisition by prescription may choose at will the starting point of the acquisition by prescription for land without changing the owner during the period of possession, and recognize the acquisition by prescription for not less than 20 years, unless it is found that it is not an autonomous possession, regardless of the change of land owner after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, even if there is a change in the ownership after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, it is also reasonable in cases where the acquisition by prescription continues to be occupied by the original possessor and the change in the owner is again completed as the new starting point, so the possessor who claims the acquisition by prescription may claim the completion of the acquisition by using the new starting point at the

Article 245(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da46360 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1311)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Attorney Choi Byung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 92Na12123 delivered on August 12, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, since the above-mentioned land was divided into two documents Kim Jong-gun, 1548, and the non-party 1548, and the above land was divided into 1157, 319-1, 34, 319-2, and 319-3, 319-2, and 319-3, 319-1, and the above-mentioned land had no longer been found to have been registered for the transfer of ownership on the ground of the non-party 2's expiration of the prescription period, the court below found that the non-party 2 had no longer been registered for the transfer of ownership on the non-party 319-4, 742, and the non-party 2 had no longer been registered for the transfer of ownership on the non-party 1, 1963's expiration of the prescription period for the non-party 1, 1963.

However, a person who asserts the acquisition by prescription may arbitrarily choose the starting point of the acquisition by prescription for land without any change of the owner during the occupancy period, and recognize the acquisition by prescription for not less than 20 years in advance from the date of claiming the acquisition by prescription, and unless it is found that it is not an autonomous possession. This is also reasonable even in cases where the owner is changed after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, even if the original possessor continues to occupy and the owner is changed, and the change in the owner is made at the new starting point, even if the change in the ownership is made, it shall also be deemed reasonable in cases where the acquisition by prescription is completed again by taking the new starting point as the starting point of the acquisition by using the change in ownership as the starting point of the acquisition by applying the new starting point of the acquisition by prescription (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da46

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's above assertion without examining and determining the facts of the plaintiff's possession for the above reasons. Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the starting point of the prescriptive acquisition, and it is clear that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a reason to point out this issue.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)