(a) Whether the possession of a seller after the sale of land is changed to that of another owner;

B. The case holding that there are special circumstances to interpret that the possession after the sale remains frequently in possession

A. Since a seller of land is liable to deliver the land sold to a purchaser, the possession after the sale is not changed to the possession of another owner in its nature, but there are special circumstances.

B. The case holding that it is reasonable to interpret that a seller's possession of the land after the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership does not change to a third party's possession and still remains as an independent possession, unless it is found that the seller's possession of the land is not a part of the land sold by him but as a part of the adjoining land and continued such possession as before.

Articles 197 and 245 of the Civil Act

A. or Supreme Court Decision 92Da26468, 26475 delivered on December 24, 1992 (193Sang, 596). Supreme Court Decision 92Da20064 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 282) 92Da43975 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2582)

Plaintiff-Appellant Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 94Na1917 delivered on September 15, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below recognized that, while the Plaintiff’s deceased non-party 1, who leased the land prior to the subdivision of this case owned by the Plaintiff, he purchased the land adjacent to the same Ri and the building adjacent thereto. Despite the fact that the land at the time was part of the land prior to the subdivision of this case, it was located inside the fence of the above ( Address omitted) land, and therefore, he continued to possess the land at that time after being aware of it as part of the above ( Address omitted), the above non-party 1 sold part of the land prior to the subdivision to the deceased non-party 2, and the plaintiff succeeding to the above non-party 1 sold the remaining part of the land prior to the subdivision of this case to the non-party 3, and continued to occupy the land of this case after completing the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant with respect to the whole land prior to the subdivision of this case, the court below’s fact-finding should be justified in light of the record and comparison with the evidence relations stated by the court below.

On the other hand, since a seller of land is liable for the delivery of the land sold to a buyer, the possession after the sale is changed to another owner's possession due to its nature, except in special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da26468, 26476, Dec. 24, 192). If the facts are the same, the Plaintiff is obviously aware that the land of this case is not included in the subject of sale since the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the sale of the land before the sale. Thus, since the ownership transfer registration is completed, the Plaintiff's possession of the land of this case after the registration of ownership transfer is completed, it shall not be deemed that it is nothing more than the possession of the land of this case as part of the land he sold, but it is nothing more than the continuation of possession as before and after the registration of ownership transfer. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the possession of the land of this case after the registration of this case is not changed to the main possession, but still still

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that held to the same effect is justifiable, and the precedents of party members pointing out the land are about the so-called seller's possession with the knowledge that the seller is the subject matter of sale, and thus, the so-called seller's possession cannot be a proper precedent, unlike this case. In the end,

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)