Whether the possessor can oppose the acquisition by prescription if there is any third party who has made a registration of preservation of ownership in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration of Undeveloped Land and Preservation Registration, etc. in the Gu, on the land after the expiration of the period of acquisition by prescription by the possessor.

A person who has completed registration of preservation of ownership pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Land Owned by another person concerning land owned by another person shall only be the owner by the registration of preservation, and the period for the acquisition by a person who occupies the land has expired before the registration has been completed, since the possessor is a new interested person after the expiration of the prescription period, the possessor shall not oppose the said person upon the completion of the prescription period.

Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, Article 15(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Land that is not yet owned by the owners of a river area in the Gu, Article 15(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. for the Preservation, etc. of Land that is not owned by the owners of a river area in the Gu

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Park Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 94Na3869,3876 delivered on February 3, 1995 (Counterclaim)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the site in this case was circumstances in the non-party 1 on May 11, 1915, and that the registration of preservation of ownership was already made in its name on June 28, 1918. On July 4, 1991, the court below recognized that the registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the plaintiff pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Registration for Restoration of and Registration for Preservation of Unclaimed Land, etc. (Act No. 3627), and rejected the defendant's assertion that the registration of preservation of ownership in this case was null and void because the above registration of preservation of ownership was made with a false certificate of guarantee and a written confirmation without any evidence to prove it. The court below's fact-finding and determination are just in light of the relation of evidence as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence

2. A person who has made a registration of preservation of ownership on a parcel of land owned by another person pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Unclaimed Land owned by another person shall be the owner only by the registration of preservation. If the period for the acquisition by a person occupying the parcel of land has expired before the registration was made, the registered titleholder shall be the new interested party after the expiration of the prescription period, and thus the possessor shall not oppose the registered titleholder upon the completion of the prescription period.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's claim for the completion of the prescription, and there is no error in law. The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)