The meaning of possession with respect to the acquisition by prescription

The possession by prescription means a possession with the intent to control identical to the owner, and it does not mean a possession with the title to legally control, i.e., the ownership, or with the belief that he/she has ownership.

Articles 197 and 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Da18838 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2115), Supreme Court Decision 93Da24889 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 277), Supreme Court Decision 93Da12176 delivered on October 21, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3063), Supreme Court Decision 94Da36438, 36445 delivered on November 8, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 3252)

Plaintiff (Dongdong Law Firm, Attorneys Park Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Young-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 95Na5309 delivered on May 1, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the case of prescriptive acquisition, possession means a possession with the intent to control identical to the owner, that is, the title to legally control, that is, the ownership, or that is believed to have ownership (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da18838, Jul. 9, 1991; 94Da36438, Nov. 8, 1994; 36445, Nov. 8, 1994, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above real estate was disposed of by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who purchased the above real estate from Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 6 in the above 1’s possession of the above real estate (the above real estate was disposed of by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 4, and the above real estate was disposed of by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 6, which was located in the non-party 1’s possession of the deceased 6,000 square meters (the above real estate was disposed of by the non-party 1 to the non-party 4, the non-party 1 to the non-party 7, and the non-party 1 to the non-party 5’s possession of the deceased 1 to the non-party 7,000 square meters (the above real estate was disposed of by the non-party 1 to the non-party 4, the non-party 1 to the above non-party 6’s possession of the forest land). The non-party 5, who was assigned to the non-party 1 to the non-party 6.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above recognition judgment of the court below is fully acceptable, and such determination of the court below is completed in view of the property inheritance relation to the real estate of this case, so it cannot be deemed that the acquisition by prescription against the above non-party 1 was completed, and it cannot be viewed as contrary to the old custom that recognizes the inheritance of the family head by the adopted child who is South Korea. Thus, there is no error of law by either misapprehending the legal principles on inheritance and possession in the old custom, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by falsely confirming facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. All arguments are

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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)