Cases where it may be deemed that the person who was registered as the owner of a real estate had been negligent in occupying such real estate.

After the registry of the real estate registered under the name of the plaintiff was lost due to the six-25 incident, the defendant filed a claim for the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer without asking the plaintiff whether or not to sell the real estate in question, even though the defendant purchased the real estate in question from a person who is a representative of the plaintiff's agent, and the defendant alone filed a registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant on the ground that the registration was made before the registry office is registered, it cannot be said that the registration was made under the legitimate procedure that the ownership transfer registration of the real estate in question was restored to the name of the defendant. Thus, the defendant cannot be said to have been negligent in occupying

Article 245(2) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Maximum extent

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na33 delivered on September 22, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na33 delivered on September 22, 1967

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil District Court.

Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s ground of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

On November 27, 1951, the judgment of the court below can be accepted that "the non-party 1, the mother of the non-party 2 (in-house address) who had living together with the plaintiff, occupied and managed the original land upon the plaintiff's delegation, and that the non-party 3 had the power of delegation and the certificate of seal impression, it is believed that the non-party 3 has the right to sell the same land. The non-party 3 purchased the same land from the non-party 3 and constructed a building with approximately 60 square meters on the same land and owned it, and the defendant (non-party 1's children) continued to occupy the same land without the defendant's intention to own it, and the testimony of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who had been living together with the plaintiff, and the non-party 3, the defendant did not believe that the non-party 1 had the right to receive the registration and the certificate of seal impression transferred to the defendant, and the defendant did not own the remaining land after 16.

However, according to Article 245(2) of the Civil Act, when a person who has registered as an owner of real estate possesses such real estate in good faith and without negligence for ten years, it shall acquire ownership. According to the facts recognized by the original judgment, subparagraph 1 through 4, and subparagraph 5, the original judgment was established. According to the defendant's prior owner's prior owner's purchase of this real estate from the non-party 3, who is called the plaintiff's agent, who was first registered in the name of the plaintiff, 6.25 times after the loss of the 6.25 accidents, the registration of ownership transfer cannot be determined by the defendant's prior to the expiration of 1953.6 years, without any justifiable reason, since the defendant's prior to the destruction of the registry, the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate cannot be determined by the defendant's prior to the expiration of 1953.6 years, it cannot be determined by the court below's decision that the remaining registration of ownership transfer was the one of the above real estate.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court, which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro