The case holding that it is necessary to clarify whether there is any assertion on the starting date of the possession of the person after the commencement date of the possession of the former as the starting date of the acquisition by prescription of the former succession.

The case holding that in case where possession of real estate has been succeeded in succession, it is necessary to clarify whether there is a claim for prescriptive acquisition as of the starting date of possession of the successor to the claim for prescriptive acquisition, which is the starting date of the first possession.

Articles 199(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act; Articles 126(1) and 126(4) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da2531 Delivered on December 28, 1976

Plaintiff (Attorney Nam-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Daegu District Court Decision 92Na8727 delivered on January 29, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were owned by the non-party 4 and the non-party 2, the above non-party 4 and the non-party 5 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 were owned by the non-party 5 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 9 were non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were non-party 6 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 9 were non-party 4 and the non-party 6 were non-party 9 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 were non-party 9 and the non-party 4 were non-party 6 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 6 were non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were divided into the above non-party 4 and the non-party 9 and the non-party 9 were non-party 1 and the non-party 6 were divided into the forest.

2. However, examining the Defendant’s assertion on the prescriptive acquisition based on the record, since the Defendant continued to possess the forest of this case as the owner’s intention from January 9, 1959, there is room to deem that Nonparty 4 acquired the instant forest by prescription on the 20th anniversary of the above occupation date. Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated and determined the same by clarifying the content of the assertion.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of law which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)