The meaning of peaceful possession

The phrase “secure possession” as stipulated in Article 245 of the Civil Code refers to the possessor’s acquisition or possession of such possession that does not use force that is not permitted by the law, and only the fact that there was an objection against the illegal person or a dispute over ownership was raised by the person who asserts that such possession was illegal, it cannot be said that the possession is not peace.

Articles 245 and 196(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294No153 Delivered on November 6, 1954

Kim Yong-type

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

Cheongju District Court Decision 80Na24 delivered on December 12, 1980

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the court below's decision, among the 15th to 330.6th of the 11st of the Cheongju-si Campaign presumed to be owned by the plaintiff, the court below confirmed that the defendant owned the 11st of the 15th of the 28th of the 28th of the Cheongju-si Campaign and owned the 11st of the 11st of the 197th of the 1959-28th of the 28th of the 29th of the 19599-28th of the 129th of the 28th of the 1959-2nd of the 28th of the 1959-2nd of the 196th of the 1979-2nd of the 23th of the 1979-2nd of the 196th of the 20th of the 20th of the 196th of the 197-2nd of the 2nd of the 20th of the 19.

However, as to the peace of the tenant's possession (Article 162 of the former Civil Code) of Article 245 of the Civil Code, a party member decided that the possessor's possession does not use a strong act that is not permitted by the law in acquiring or holding the tenant's possession, and that it cannot be said that the possession is not peace unless there was a dispute between the defendant and the defendant's opinion that the possessor's possession was subject to objection from the person who asserts that it was illegal or against ownership. (See Supreme Court Decisions 4278Da189 delivered on November 6, 1954, 4294No153 delivered on January 18, 1962) because the dispute of this case is public health stand, and the testimony of the above witness's regular meeting, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's construction of the fence was a simple dispute between the defendant and the defendant's opinion that it did not have an effect on the construction of the wall of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed without examining the remainder of the grounds for appeal as to this point, and the case shall be remanded to the Cheongju District Court Panel Division which is the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Justice)