(a) If possessory right is acquired by inheritance, whether he/she can assert only the possession of him/her;

(b) Where the possession of the representative can become the possession of the representative frequently even if it is the possession of the representative;

(c) Where one co-owner occupies co-owned real estate, whether it is the possession of another co-owner within the limit of shares of other co-owners;

(a) If possessory right is acquired by inheritance, the inheritor may not claim his possession regardless of the possession of the inheritee, unless he commences his own possession with a new title; and

(b) If the possession of the representative is the owner, the possession of the person who succeeds to the possession by inheritance from the owner of the ship does not vary before the inheritance and the nature or form of the person who succeeds to the possession by inheritance from the owner of the ship, barring special circumstances, the possession cannot be the owner of the ship independently. In order to hold the possession as the owner independently, the possessor must either indicate the owner's intention or commence the possession with the new title as the owner's intention.

C. Even if one co-owner occupies all of the co-owners, the co-owned real estate shall be deemed to be the possession of another co-owner within the scope of his/her share ratio due to the nature of the title, barring any special circumstances

(b)Article 245(a) of the Civil Code. Article 199(a) of the Civil Code. Article 193(b) of the Civil Code. Article 197 of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da22602, 22619 delivered on September 22, 1992, and 93Do1099 delivered on September 14, 1993. Supreme Court Decision 86Da550 delivered on February 10, 198, Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1418, 1419 delivered on December 13, 198, Supreme Court Decision 92Da18184 delivered on September 8, 1992, and 92Da38904 delivered on February 23, 1993

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-Law Office, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant

Defendant-Appellee et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na25877 delivered on March 17, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the defendant occupied the real estate of this case on February 5, 1945, where the non-party 1, who was his father, died (the father of the defendant had already died on October 8, 1943, his father), and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, who followed him, were appointed as the administrator, and occupied the real estate of this case while cutting down the trees from the real estate of this case and managing the graves of the non-party 4, who was the five trillion assistant of the defendant who was installed on the land of this case. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant occupied the real estate of this case as possession of the real estate of this case on February 5, 1945, since he occupied the real estate of this case in a peaceful manner with his intention to own it, and acquired it on February 5, 1965.

However, if possessory right is acquired by inheritance, the inheritor cannot assert his own possession regardless of the possession of the inheritee unless he commences his own possession by new title. In addition, in the case where the possession of the substitute is the possession by inheritance, the possession of the inheritor by inheritance does not differ from the inheritance transfer and its nature or form. Thus, barring special circumstances, the possession cannot be a sole possession. In order for the possessor to hold it as an independent possession, the possessor must indicate that he has the intention to hold it against the owner or commence possession by another intention with a new title (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da22602, 22619, Sept. 22, 1992; 86Da550, Feb. 10, 1987).

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below in this case, as the defendant died of the deceased non-party 1, his father, the defendant started possession of the real estate in this case by inheritance. However, unless the defendant commenced possession of the real estate in this case with a new title or expressed his intention to own it to the owner, the defendant's possession of the real estate in this case can only be determined by the nature of possession of the real estate in this case by the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the decedent.

In addition, as recognized by the court below, if the ownership transfer registration has been completed on July 19, 1927 with respect to the original real estate, the above real estate was owned by Nonparty 1, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 7, barring any special circumstances, it shall be presumed that the above four co-owners were co-owned, and the co-owned real estate is owned by another co-owner within the limit of the shares of other co-owners due to the nature of the title, unless there are any special circumstances. Thus, even if the above deceased Nonparty 1 possessed the entire real estate of this case, it shall be deemed that the possession of the real estate of this case, the heir of the deceased Nonparty 1, was the owner within the limit of the share of 3/4 unless there are other special circumstances, and the possession of the real estate of this case by the defendant, the defendant, the heir of the above deceased Nonparty 1, had commenced by new title, and it shall be deemed that the ownership of the real estate of this case was possessed by another co-owner within the extent of the above share.

Therefore, the court below, after examining whether the defendant succeeded to or acquired the possession of the real estate in this case by inheritance, should further examine the nature, etc. of the possession of the real estate in this case by the above non-party 1, and determine whether or not the possession of the real estate in this case is an autonomous possession. However, the court below determined that the defendant's possession of the real estate in this case is separate possession of the real estate in this case without doing so, by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the nature of possession by the person who succeeded to possession by inheritance, and it is obvious that such illegality has influenced the judgment, and therefore, the argument on this point is with merit

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)