(a)A voluntary choice of the starting point of the acquisition by prescription (affirmative with limitation);

(b)whether the court may authorize the commencement of prescription of a real possession without recourse to the allegations of the parties in the event of a change in the owner of the real property during the period of possession (affirmative);

A. The possessor of real estate can claim the completion of the prescriptive acquisition by selecting the starting point prior to 20 years unless there are other opposing circumstances. It is not necessarily necessary to say that the first starting point of possession should be determined specifically at any time.

B. Even after the expiration of the period of prescriptive acquisition of real estate ownership, if the acquisition of the relevant real estate is not registered, the registration cannot be completed, or a third party who acquired the relevant real estate under the provisions of law. As such, the expiration of the period of prescriptive acquisition cannot be asserted solely on the ground that the claimant has chosen the starting point at his own discretion or occupied it for 20 or more years retroactively during the period of possession. In such a case, the court should recognize the starting period of the real possession as recognized by the litigation data and determine the propriety of the claim for the prescriptive acquisition based on the basis of the foregoing.

A. Article 245(1) of the Civil Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 92Da20774 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong1933,76). Supreme Court Decision 90Da16723 Delivered on November 9, 1990 (Gong1991,47). Decision 91Da8104 Delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong1991,2245) (Gong1992,2847). (b) Supreme Court Decision 92Da20941,20958 Delivered on September 8, 1992 (Gong192,2847). Supreme Court Decision 79Da1806 Delivered on December 26, 1979 (Gong1980,12494), Supreme Court Decision 80Da2671 delivered on June 22, 1982, 1988; Supreme Court Decision 200Da198385 delivered on August 16, 1985).

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorneys Seo-gu, Seo-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 90Na5208 delivered on June 11, 1992

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence. There is no ground to dispute the whole of the fact-finding authority.

On the second ground for appeal

Pursuant to Article 245(1) of the Civil Code, a person who possesses a real estate in a peaceful and peaceful manner for twenty (20) years shall acquire the ownership by registration, and the possessor shall be presumed to have occupied the real estate in good faith, peace and public performance by his own will in accordance with Article 197(1) of the same Code.

Therefore, the possessor of real estate can claim the completion of the prescriptive acquisition by selecting the starting point prior to 20 years unless there are other opposing circumstances. It is not necessarily necessary to say that the first starting point of the possession should be determined specifically at any time.

However, even if the acquisition period of real estate ownership expires, if the real estate is not registered, it cannot be claimed against the third party who acquired the real estate in question and completed the registration or acquired the real estate in question under the provisions of law. Thus, if there is a change in the owner of the real estate in the above possession period, the claimant for the acquisition by prescription can not assert the completion of prescription only on the ground that the person arbitrarily selected the starting point of commencement or occupied it for not less than 20 years retroactively, and in such a case, the court recognizes the starting point of real possession as recognized by the litigation data, and determines the legitimacy of the acquisition by prescription by putting it up on the basis thereof.

The issue is that the starting point of the possession should be determined, and it can be seen that the source of the possession is the owner or the owner is the owner or the owner is the owner. However, since the possession is presumed to be the owner or the owner is presumed to be the owner or the owner is not necessarily required to be the source of the possession, and the person who asserts that the possession is not the owner or the owner is the owner or the owner bears the burden

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the starting point of the acquisition period of real estate ownership, and it cannot be accepted in the opposite opinion. There is no reason for the discussion.

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