Where a title trust is terminated before the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of real estate held in title trust and a new title trust is made, and the title of ownership is transferred to a new title trustee, whether the new title trustee may assert the prescriptive acquisition (negative)

In cases where the above title trust is terminated and a new title trust is made before the completion of the prescription period for possession of real estate held in title after the possessor's possession was completed, and the title of ownership was transferred from the title trustee to the new title trustee at the time of the completion of the prescription period for possession, insofar as the transfer of the above title is not null and void, the new title trustee constitutes a person who acquires the ownership after the completion of the prescription period for possession, and the said possessor cannot assert the prescriptive acquisition

Articles 103 [title trust] and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Kim Yong-si (Attorney Kim Yong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Appointed Party) 1 and 52 others

Changwon District Court Decision 98Na6583 delivered on March 30, 2000

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

In cases where the above title trust is terminated and a new title trust is made before the completion of the statute of limitations for the possessor’s possession of real estate held in title after completion of the ownership transfer registration, and the title of ownership is transferred from the title trustee to the new title trustee at the time of the completion of the statute of limitations for the possession, insofar as the transfer of ownership is not null and void, the new title trustee constitutes a person who acquires ownership after the completion of the statute of limitations for the possession, and the said possessor cannot assert the prescriptive acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da22484, May 9, 195).

Therefore, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The lower court’s propriety of the judgment additionally rendered without regard to the instant claim does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, need not be examined. Therefore,

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)