[1] Whether the presumption of transfer registration of ownership transfer also affects the former owner (affirmative)

[2] Whether the possession of a seller after the sale of land changes to the possession of a third party (affirmative)

[3] Whether the succession of the occupation by inheritance succeeds to the occupation by inheritance (affirmative)

[1] If the registration of ownership transfer has been made, not only the third party but also the former owner shall be presumed to have acquired the ownership by the legitimate reason of registration.

[2] The possession of a seller who sells real estate to another person and is liable to deliver it is changed to the possession of another owner, barring special circumstances.

[3] If possessory right is acquired through inheritance, the inheritor may not assert his own possession regardless of the possession of the inheritee unless the inheritor commences his own possession with a new title. In addition, in a case where the possession of the leased is the possession of the leased, the possession of the inheritor by inheritance from the leased does not vary in its nature or form, barring special circumstances, such possession cannot be the possession independently. In order to hold the possession independently, the possessor must express his intention to the owner, or commence the possession with the intention to own again with a new title.

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 197 (1) and 245 (1) of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 193, 199, and 245 (1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da26379, 26386 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 1675), Supreme Court Decision 92Da46059 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1675), Supreme Court Decision 94Da10160 delivered on September 13, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 263) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da51871 delivered on May 23, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2230), Supreme Court Decision 94Da5059, 501 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong194, 196Da194979 decided Apr. 196, 197)

Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 97Na1604 delivered on July 24, 1997

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, comprehensively based on the evidence adopted in its judgment, acknowledged the fact that the land of this case was occupied by succession to the land of this case on December 2, 1934 and was transferred to the present time on December 22, 1934, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the deceased non-party 1, who was put to the defendant on February 10, 1968, for the reason that the above non-party 1 died on February 10, 1968, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the defendant on December 21, 1993. The plaintiff's father-party 2, who was the plaintiff, occupied the land of this case from around 1928 and died on December 31, 194, and rejected the plaintiff's claim against the non-party 1, who was the deceased's title to the land of this case on December 31, 1945.

2. However, according to the facts and records duly admitted by the court below, it is clear that on February 22, 1928, the land of this case was registered under the name of Nonparty 2, a father of the plaintiff, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on December 2, 1934.

However, if the registration of transfer of ownership has been made, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration (see Supreme Court Decisions 76Da3010, Jun. 7, 197; 81Da791, Jun. 22, 1982), barring any special circumstance, Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff’s prior owner, is presumed to have sold the instant land to Nonparty 1, the Defendant’s prior owner on December 2, 1934; on the other hand, the seller’s possession of real estate by selling it to another person is presumed to have been changed to have been occupied by another owner on December 9, 197; 2648; 26475, Jun. 28, 196; 205Da49797, Nov. 9, 205).

Therefore, as acknowledged by the court below, if the plaintiff acquired by succession the possession of the non-party 2 as to the land of this case by inheritance, barring any special circumstance, the possession of the land of this case shall be deemed to be the possession of the owner by succession, barring any special circumstance. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff's possession of the land of this case shall be deemed to be the possession of the owner. Thus, unless there is a special circumstance to the contrary that the plaintiff expressed his intention to own to the defendant who is the owner, or that he commenced possession with the intention to own it with a new title, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that the possession of the land of this case is the possession of the owner of the land of this case cannot be rejected, but the decision of the court below which accepted the plaintiff's claim of this case shall not be deemed to have caused any

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)