Cases not deemed to have been possessed by the owner's intent;

In the event that a sales contract was concluded and a down payment was made, even if the price control order was abolished at a certain time for the payment of the remainder, and thus the said sales contract was not concluded, it is obvious that the said contract had not been concluded, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that it was possessed with the intention

Article 245 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 68Da1578 decided Mar. 18, 1969 (Civil Code 245(46), 330 Ka209, 17 ① 307, 32(27), 1963, Ka208, Ga208, 17 ① 307) 71Da2132 decided Jan. 31, 1972 (Civil Code 245(63), Ka9861, 200 ② 25)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Seoul District Court of the first instance (No. 4291 citizen1690)

Supreme Court Decision 4294No1512 Delivered on April 18, 1962

The part against the plaintiff against the defendant 2 in the original judgment shall be revoked and the part against the plaintiff against the defendant 1, 3, 4, and 5 shall be modified as follows:

Defendant 1 shall pay to the Plaintiff money at the rate of KRW 269 won per month from May 1, 1956 to the completion of removal and delivery of the land of KRW 269,00,000 per month from the 27th 8th Donsan-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, by paying the amount at the rate of KRW 230,00 per month from the 1956 May 1, 1956 to the above removal and delivery of the land of KRW 269,00 from the 24th Don 23th Don 538 to the 30th Don Don 23th Don Don 14th Don Don-dong, and at the same time the above removal and delivery of the land of KRW 230 from March 1, 1953 to the above removal and delivery of the land of KRW 14th Don 539 Don 146.

Defendant 5 pays 147 won per month from June 1, 1956 to the date of removal and delivery of the land after removing 10 square meters per 1 unit of 1 unit of 1 unit of 538 to 21 unit of 538 unit of ground.

Defendant 2, from January 2, 1953 to the above removal and delivery completion, shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by multiplying 262 won per month from January 2, 1953 to the above removal and delivery completion of the land, among the land No. 19 of the above 37 No. 19 of the above No. 37 of the same Donsan No. 26-2.

All of the defendants' main indictments are dismissed.

The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

The plaintiff (the defendant and the defendant-appellant) sought a judgment identical to the purport of this case and the order against the defendants' prosecution. The defendants (the defendant-appellant and the defendant-appellant) shall revoke the part against the defendants in the original judgment as to the purport of this case and the plaintiff's prosecution.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff's main case is dismissed.

The judgment that the total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff was sought.

The actual statement and proof relations between both parties are as follows: (a) the court below’s correction of 13 square meters in the first instance court prior to the remanding of the claim against Defendant 1 by the plaintiff’s attorney; and (b) the court below’s correction of 12 square meters in the first instance court prior to the remanding of the claim against the defendant 1; and (c) according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 1-1 and Gap evidence No. 2-2 as alleged by the plaintiff, it is evident that the defendant occupied the part as alleged by the plaintiff; and (d) the court below acknowledged only the right to benefit among three exclusive rights as alleged by the plaintiff; and (e) it is unfair, among the judgment below, the part against the defendant 2 against the defendant 1 who lost at the court below's judgment prior to the remanding of the claim against the defendant 1, 22 (Resignation) and the witness, 3, 4, and 5 were remanded to the court below for the first time after the remanding of the claim against the defendants.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 own each of the buildings identical to the entry in the order above the ground as the Plaintiff’s owner, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts under possession from the same date as the entry in the order (as to the portion of possession of Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 among the Defendants, the aforementioned Defendants’ legal representative shall occupy the same location as the Plaintiff’s owner from the date of pleading on September 12, 1958 and own the same building as the Plaintiff’s owner on the same site, and even though they have led to confession as to this, the Defendants’ withdrawal of confession from the legal brief dated March 18, 1958 as to the possession, location, and reputation of the Plaintiff’s owner from the date of pleading on which the Plaintiff’s legal representative was presented on March 27, 1959, it cannot be concluded that the Defendants’ legal representative did not have any evidence of possession as to the portion of the Plaintiff’s land under the name of Nonparty 2 as the Plaintiff’s non-party 1’s ownership.

However, the defendants asserted that the ownership of each part of the land of this case was acquired due to the completion of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the defendants should obtain the approval of the competent Do governor under the so-called price control order, which was enforced at the time of purchasing each part of the land of this case from the non-party ship's original owner, the original owner of this case. Accordingly, the defendants' sales contract for exhibition was not concluded since it was not objectively deemed to have intention to hold ownership in commencement of possession of the land of this case, and it is difficult to view that the defendants had an intention to hold ownership in possession itself as independent possession. The defendants' defense as to the statute of limitations should be rejected in the future because the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff, who was registered from the non-party ship's own name, agreed to set the price to be the sale price at the same time and paid only the down payment was 8.15.

Therefore, unless there is any special reason otherwise, the defendants are obliged to remove the buildings owned by the defendants and deliver them to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land of this case. Thus, when the plaintiff purchases the land of this case again, the defendants had the buildings of this case, and all the buildings owned by the defendants were completed, and even if they were at the market price, they exceed the price of the land. Thus, the defendant's defense of abuse of rights against the public order and good morals is the owner of the land. However, even if the defendant's assertion and proof are the defendant's previous assertion and proof, there is no evidence to believe that there was no awareness to put the defendants at a disadvantage more than the awareness of the plaintiff's assistance in exercising the ownership of the land of this case recognized as being exhibited by the plaintiff, and it is difficult to view that the exercise of rights is against our social order, and therefore the defendants' defenses above should not be dismissed.

The following facts are examined as to the claim for damages equivalent to the rent of the Plaintiff’s land. In full view of the purport of the parties’ argument at the testimony of Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 1, the witness of the court below before remanding the case, the part of the Defendants except the Defendant 5’s possession is 10 won per ordinary day and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent of Defendant 5’s possession is 7 grounds. As to the starting point of the calculation, there is no dispute between the original and the Defendant as to the part acknowledged by the court below and the court before remanding the case, and thus, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent of the above building as stated in the order of removal of the building owned by the Defendants and delivery of the site from the date of the order indicated in the order of the Plaintiff’s possession to the date of completion of the judgment on delivery of the site. Thus, the Defendants’ claim for damages equivalent to the rent of the above building and the monthly exhibition recognized by the Defendant until the date of completion of the judgment on delivery of the site is 88.

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)