beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In the acquisition by prescription of possession of immovables, whether the possessor is an independent possession with the intention of possession, or with no intention of possession, shall not be determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title causing the acquisition of possession or all circumstances related to the possession, be determined externally and objectively;
However, if the nature of possessory right is not clear, it is presumed that the possessor had possession with his intention to own pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the possessor is not responsible for proving that the possessor himself/herself is the possession with the nature of the possessory right, and the possessor bears the burden of proving the possession with respect to the possessor's possession with no intention to own
Therefore, even if the possessor asserts the right of possession such as sale and purchase, even if it is not recognized, the presumption of possession with autonomy can not be reversed or it cannot be viewed as the possession with the nature of the possessor's source of possession.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da43529, Oct. 11, 2013). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court reveals the following facts. A.
On January 9, 1985, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with D and the instant land registered as the owner at KRW 942,700, and paid D the purchase price in full around that time.
B. Although the Defendant delegated the application for the transfer registration of ownership to K of the instant land to a judicial clerk, the time and reason for the application for the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the Defendant was rejected.
C. On July 1, 1985, the registration of transfer of ownership in D’s name was cancelled and the registration of ownership was restored in F’s name.
The defendant shall execute the above contract of sale and purchase.