(a)the proposal for purchase and the waiver of prescription interest or presumption of bad faith possession by the possessor after the expiration of the period of prescription;

(b) Registration rental fees before and after the completion of prescription and acquisition of ownership by prescription acquisitor;

A. Even if the possessor has made a proposal to purchase the land to the other party after the expiration of the acquisition period, in general, the possessor cannot be deemed as an expression of intent that the possessor renounces the benefit of prescription, or as a malicious possession, in light of the fact that the possessor attempted to purchase the land to resolve the dispute between the owner and the other party, even after the completion of the acquisition period.

(b) A person who fails to make a registration of ownership transfer for any reason, after the completion of the period of prescription, may not claim the acquisition by prescription against a third party who takes over the ownership on the register of such real estate from the previous owner, but may claim the acquisition by prescription against the title holder at the time of completion of prescription, which is transferred before the expiration of the period of prescription

a. Article 184(b) of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu771 delivered on February 25, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 77Da785 delivered on August 23, 197

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) Maximum attorney-at-law

Defendant 1 (Counterclaim Plaintiff), Defendant 2, and nine others

Daegu High Court Decision 86Na1130, 1131 decided January 14, 198 (Counterclaim)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

The decision of the court below is justified in recognizing the fact that Defendant 1 (Counterclaim) and the deceased non-party occupy the possession, which is the basis of the period of prescription for the acquisition of ownership on each part of the relevant land in this case, and there is no violation of law such as violation of the validity of private donation, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and any error in determining the facts against the rules

In addition, even if the possessor has made a proposal for the purchase of land to the other party after the expiration of the acquisition period, in general, in light of the fact that the possessor attempted to purchase the land to resolve the dispute between the owner and the other party even after the completion of the acquisition period, it cannot be deemed that the possessor renounces the benefit of prescription or is deemed as possession in bad faith (see Supreme Court Decision 85Da771, Feb. 25, 1985). (See Supreme Court Decision 85Da771, Feb. 25, 1985). After the expiration of the acquisition period, a person who fails to register the transfer of ownership for this reason can not claim the acquisition by prescription against the third party who received the ownership transfer from the former owner on the register of the real estate, but if the ownership transfer is made after the expiration of the acquisition period, the prescriptive acquisitor may claim the acquisition of the ownership against the registration titleholder at the time of the completion of the acquisition period (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da785, Aug. 23, 1977).

All arguments are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)