Cases where there is an error of misunderstanding the legal principles as to possessory right and as to lien;

When the purchaser of a clan purchases forest land from the representative of the clan, he/she sold the forest land with the consent of the clan or the members of the clan and requested the consent of the purchaser of the same clan, and the above person requested that the purchaser of the forest land be registered to transfer the ownership of the forest land and the separate forest land under the name of the above person, under the exchange condition for the consent, the above person requested the above clan representative to register the ownership of the forest land and the separate forest land under the name of the above person. The above clan representative accepted it and delivered it to the above person with the right certificate, and the above person agreed that the purchaser will transfer the ownership of the forest land to the purchaser, so if he/she was transferred from the manager of the above forest land at that time and up to 8-9 years, the purchaser's first possession of the forest land and the above shall not be deemed an illegal possession that prevents the purchaser from establishing the right to retention.

Article 192 of the Civil Act, Article 203(2) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Cheongju District Court Decision 66Na78 delivered on December 14, 1966

We reverse the original judgment.

this case is remanded to Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

The defendant's chief is as follows. In other words, the defendant purchased 1,90 f1,00 f1,00 f1,00 f1,00 f1,00 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f1,000 f,00.

However, according to the original judgment, the court below acknowledged the fact that the original forest is not entrusted to the plaintiff, but it is owned by the plaintiff's own owner. Since the original forest was registered under the plaintiff's name in the name of the plaintiff, it can be seen that the defendant purchased the original forest from the non-party 1, even though the owner was known at the time of purchase from the above non-party 1, it cannot be viewed that the defendant was grossly negligent, and even if the defendant purchased the original forest, it cannot be viewed that the defendant did not investigate whose owner was the owner. And even if the defendant purchased the original forest, it must satisfy the legal requirements that can oppose the plaintiff in order to confirm the plaintiff's consent, as argued by the defendant, even though the defendant did not want to develop the original forest, it was without the consent of the plaintiff to the effect that the defendant did not object to the development of the original forest, the court below rejected the defendant's right of retention, even if the defendant did not own it in good faith, it did not have the right of retention.

However, as recognized by the court below, insofar as the plaintiff registered the preservation of ownership of the forest land under the name of the plaintiff only on March 9, 1965, it is presumed that at the time when the defendant purchases the forest land, it is not yet registered under the name of the plaintiff or the plaintiff on May 23, 1956, unless there are special circumstances, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's gross negligence did not exist under the registry that he would not investigate the owner of the forest land under the premise that it was registered. As above, the court below rejected the plaintiff's first sale of the forest land without the consent of the above non-party 1, which was the same as the above, and the defendant did not obtain the consent of the plaintiff on the sale of the forest land under the name of the non-party 1 as well as the non-party 1's first possession of the forest land under the name of the non-party 1 as the condition of exchange for that forest land, and thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's consent to the transfer registration of ownership as to the forest land.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong