A. Unless there are special circumstances, such as the fact that a person who purchased real estate from a third person and acquired it is aware that the sale becomes null and void, it would generally be deemed that he/she occupied it as his/her own intention at the beginning of the possession.

(b)in the case of purchases by the State for the purpose of distributing farmland to farmers in accordance with the Farmland Reform Act, it shall not be deemed that the State orders the farmer to manage the farmland for the State;

A. Unless there are special circumstances, such as the fact that a person who purchased real estate from a third person and acquired it is aware that the sale becomes null and void, it would generally be deemed that he/she occupied it as his/her own intention at the beginning of the possession.

B. Even if the State purchases farmland for the purpose of distributing the farmland to the farmer pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, it cannot be deemed that the State orders the farmer to manage the farmland for the State. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the change of the occupant’s possession into the possession of the farmland for the purpose of the owner, such as the property devolving upon the State.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

United Kingdom of Justice

Gambling bars

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na9 delivered on August 25, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff (only hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) are examined.

The first instance court's decision (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant"), when purchasing this case from the non-party leap person who had a manager at the time of this case on October 194 and confirming the fact that he was occupying and cultivated until now by taking over this case's land from the same person at that time, the court below reviewed the evidence in accordance with the records, not the above confirmation facts, but the court below rejected the evidence of the lawsuit (the testimony of the non-party Y Kim Chang-sung, Kim Jong-sung et al., which is clear that the court below did not adopt as evidence) (the testimony of the court below was not adopted as evidence) and each evidence rejected the above adopted evidence of the court below, and there is no violation of law of evidence in violation of the rule of experience in the evidence preparation or value judgment.

There is no ground for appeal that argues that there is a difference between the facts duly confirmed by the court below and criticizes the original court's evidence preparation and value judgment.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as the fact that a person who purchased real estate from another person and was occupied by another person is aware that the sale becomes null and void, it would generally be deemed that the person had possession at the beginning of the possession with the intention of possession, and the sale would be null and void on the ground that the seller did not have the right to dispose of it thereafter. Therefore, even if the actual owner was found to be illegal as a result, it cannot be deemed that he occupied the above possession with the intent of the purchaser to acquire the ownership. Therefore, in this case, the court below held that the court below held that the non-party who was the manager had occupied the defendant's possession delivered by the non-party on or around October 194, by purchasing the real estate in this case and selling it illegally to the defendant on or around 194, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the acquisition, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the purpose of this case is not to recognize that the farmland of this case is the land purchased from the State under the Farmland Reform Act as farmland without the plaintiff's own discretion, and according to the farmland list adopted by the court below as evidence, it is clear that the farmland of this case is the farmland excluded from the purchase of the State on the condition that it is distributed to farmers (it is clear that the plaintiff does not constitute farmland distribution according to the records). As for the land of this case, it cannot be said that there was the purchase of the State under the Farmland Reform Act for distribution to farmers. Thus, contrary to the final judgment of the court below that the defendant's autonomous possession of the land of this case is converted into the possession of the State from the time of the acquisition of the farmland of this case, the court below's appeal on the purport that the farmland of this case is converted into the possession of the State from the time of the acquisition of the farmland of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the purchase of the farmland of this case for the purpose of distribution to the farmer of farmland under the Farmland Reform Act.

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

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court