Where real estate is purchased and possessed from a person without the authority to dispose of, and

The person who purchased and possessed a real estate shall be deemed to have possessed the real estate at the beginning of the possession, unless there exists any special reason, such as the knowledge that the sale is null and void, and even if the seller becomes aware that there was no right to dispose of the real estate later, the nature of the possession shall not change.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Attorney Go-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 79Na35 delivered on January 24, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney are examined.

On November 30, 1952, the court below recognized the fact that the non-party 1 believed that he had the right to dispose of the land of this case against the non-party 2, who was in charge of the land of this case, purchased it from the Dong and cultivated it immediately after being delivered, and died on January 25, 1975, and that the plaintiffs, his heir, succeeded to the possession of this person, and did not reach the present status. The court below found that the evidence adopted by the court below was lawful by the record, and that the evidence No. 3 was lawful, and that the evidence No. 3 was not adopted as evidence, and that there was no violation of the rules of evidence in the course of fact-finding by the court below. It is groundless that the court below asserted facts different from the facts that the court below properly admitted

The second ground of appeal is examined.

Unless there are special circumstances such as the knowledge that the sale of the real estate is invalid, the person who purchased and occupied the real estate shall be deemed to possess it at the beginning of the possession, and even if the sale was invalidated due to the absence of the disposal right to the seller on the date of domestic affairs, and the possession was caused by an illegal act in the relationship with the real owner, it shall not change the nature of the possession as seen above with the purchaser's intent to acquire the ownership. Thus, even if the court below acknowledged the fact that the owner of the land in this case was granted and the non-party 2 who did not have the disposal right was illegally sold to the non-party 1 at the time of November 30, 1952, the court below held that the non-party 2 acquired and delivered the land in this case with the intention to own it as the non-party 2's intention to own it, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the prescriptive acquisition.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)