Whether it can be deemed that the possessor, after the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of real estate possession, has been proposed to purchase the real estate to the owner, has converted into the possession of another owner or has waived the benefit of prescription (negative)

It is difficult to view that the possessor was converted to another owner or renounced the benefit of prescription by recognizing that the possessor was the owner of the said real estate by recognizing that the possessor was the owner of the said real estate after the acquisition period of ownership of the real estate has elapsed due to possession.

Articles 184 and 245 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1980, 13108) (Law No. 1980, 1988) (Law No. 1989, 7455, Feb. 22, 1991) (Gong1991, 1050)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 92Na1541 delivered on May 28, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below presumed that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case in a peaceful manner with the plaintiff's intent to possess and mislead the plaintiff. The plaintiff suggested that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case to the defendant after the expiration of the acquisition period of real estate ownership due to possession. The court below held that it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff approved that the land of this case was owned by the defendant and converted into the possession of another owner or renounced the benefit of prescription. According to related evidence and records, the judgment of the court below's above recognition is just, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law of misunderstanding facts by violating the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles on the acquisition of prescription, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law of misunderstanding facts by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles on the acquisition of prescription as to the acquisition of prescription, and it cannot be viewed as a violation of the Constitution,

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

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)