Cases of incomplete hearing due to the failure to apply for verification and appraisal by the parties and due to the non-exercise of the right to ask for explanation;

In claiming that the portion of the building site possessed by the Plaintiff is 62 square meters and filing a claim for the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of prescription, if the contents in the case of submitting a certified copy of land cadastre and cadastral map while stating that no application for verification of evidence is filed, can be seen as evidence, the reason for submitting it and whether it is submitted as evidence should be clarified.

Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 130 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 66Na156 delivered on July 15, 1966

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal:

According to the original judgment, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground that "the plaintiff did not prove that the part of the original building site which the plaintiff possesses is 62 square meters (the plaintiff does not make a verification or appraisal application) and it does not have to make any judgment on the other part, and that it occupied 62 square meters of the original building site in the fence of the plaintiff's house for 20 years by constructing the change and warehouse inside the fence of the plaintiff's house, and acquired the ownership by prescription.

However, according to the records of the case, with respect to the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff wants to transfer ownership to 67 square meters of the land surface before the plaintiff's change to the claim as seen above, since the defendant's possession to 67 square meters is a defense of illegal possession, it is obvious that the plaintiff's possession to 67 square meters is indirectly recognized as the plaintiff's possession. As seen above, the plaintiff reduced the plaintiff's claim to 67 square meters to 67 square meters and reduced it to 67 square meters and divided it into the road as the 62 square meters of the above 67 square meters of the above 67 square meters as the plaintiff's ground, and submitted a copy of the land cadastre and the cadastral map to the purport that it is obvious that the plaintiff's possession is 62 square meters of the remaining 62 square meters and submitted a copy of the above land cadastre and the cadastral map, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the plaintiff's right to request the plaintiff's use of land register and its evidence.

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

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)