Cases of misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of rights

While the Defendant and the former owners continuously occupy and use the land, the Plaintiffs did not raise an objection, and the ownership of the Plaintiffs is nothing more than using the central part as a tombstone, and the removal of the part of the building in question owned by the Defendant would cause damage more than 10 times the land price if the Defendant removed the part of the building in question, and it is recognized that the Plaintiffs did not follow the settlement recommendation by the lower court, and the Defendant had the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the land in question due to the completion of the statute of limitations. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs’ claim for removal of the building is an act to compel the Defendant only to compensate for losses.

Article 2(2) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 65Na921 delivered on November 3, 1966

The judgment below is reversed;

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

We examine the Plaintiffs’ agent’ ground of appeal.

(1) The court below held that (1) the plaintiffs did not raise an objection during the continuous use of the land by the defendants and its former owners; (2) the plaintiffs' possession of the main part of the land was merely the use of the cemetery as a grave yard; (3) the market price of the land in the dispute is about 2,500 won per square, and the above ground building owned by the defendant is a solid building, and the removal of the part of the building in the dispute was made 10 times or more of the land price if the building in question was removed, it cannot be exempted from the reconstruction of the whole building. (4) The plaintiffs did not respond to the settlement recommendation of the court below of June 13, 196; (5) the defendant held the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the completion of prescription against the land in the dispute; (3) The plaintiff et al.'s use of the part of the building in the dispute, which was constructed or constructed in the part of the building in question, and sought for removal of the fences and fences, etc., is not justified.

The judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)