(a) The burden of proving negligence, which is the requirement for the acquisition by prescription on the register;

(b) Whether there is any negligence with respect to the buyer's possession, who fails to investigate whether the seller has the right to dispose of the real estate;

(c) The case rejecting the claim for the acquisition by prescription of the registry on the ground that the seller occupied the forged clan's articles of association and the sales resolution paper presented by the seller without knowing the seller's right to dispose of the real estate registered in the name of the clan;

(a) The burden of proving the negligence, which is the requirement for the acquisition by prescription for real estate, shall be the person who asserts the acquisition by prescription.

B. A person who purchases a real estate must investigate whether the seller has the right to dispose of the real estate to the seller, and if the buyer purchased the real estate without such investigation, it cannot be said that there was no negligence in the possession of the real estate, even though the seller would have been aware of the lack of the right to dispose of the real estate if the investigation was conducted.

(c) The case rejecting the claim for the acquisition by prescription of the registry on the ground that the seller occupied the forged clan articles and the sale resolution letter presented by the seller without knowing the seller's right to dispose of the real estate registered in the name of the clan;

(a)Article 245(a) of the Civil Procedure Act;

A.B. (B) Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1866 Decided July 9, 1985 (Gong1985, 1108) (Gong16792 Decided October 16, 1990) (Gong1990, 2271). Supreme Court Decision 87Meu191 Decided August 18, 1987 (Gong1987, 1455)

Attorney Lee Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant for the defendant-appellant

Sicker type

Gwangju District Court Decision 89Na6064 delivered on October 18, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's claim for the sale of this case's land on May 3, 1976 and the transfer of ownership to the defendant on May 4 of the same year. However, the court below determined that the non-party 1, one of the plaintiff's members of the plaintiff's clan, was owned by the plaintiff's species, which was registered in the name of the plaintiff's species. The non-party 1, who was the plaintiff's member of the plaintiff's clan around 1976, prepared the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff's clan at will, around October 10, 196, and had decided that the plaintiff's species sold this case's land, which was prepared by a false resolution, and sold this document to the defendant on May 3, 1976 and the transfer of ownership was completed before the defendant on May 4 of the same year. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the sale of this case's land on behalf of the plaintiff's species and the plaintiff's articles of incorporation and the sale.

2. The burden of proving the negligence, which is the requirement for the acquisition by prescription of the registry of real estate, shall be borne by the person who asserts the acquisition by prescription, and the purchaser of the real estate shall investigate whether the seller has the right to dispose of the real estate, unless there are special circumstances, and if he/she purchased the real estate without such investigation, he/she could have known the seller that he/she had no right to dispose of the real estate, but if he/she purchased the real

3. However, in light of the records, even though considering the developments leading up to the sale and purchase acknowledged by the court below, it is unreasonable to recognize that the defendant's possession of the land of this case is autonomous possession and bona fide possession, and it is reasonable to recognize it as negligence without fault only with such facts. The articles of incorporation and sale resolution of the plaintiff's species presented to the defendant by the non-party 1, which were forged or falsely prepared, shall not be deemed to be negligence without fault on the ground that the defendant was unaware.

4. In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 20 (Judgment) which does not dispute the establishment of Gap's 20 (No. 11), among the plaintiff's species, the plaintiff's 11-year old old vessel's new vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's Nos. 9 (Additional vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old No. 3 (the adult's name under the 111)'s old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's old vessel's 3.

5. If so, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the burden of proof of negligence as a requirement for the acquisition of the registry, or by violating the rules of evidence, and thereby recognizing the negligence without fault, and it is reasonable to discuss this as it affected the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)