Cases concerning the assertion that ownership of forest land is acquired by prescription, which are not fully examined;

If the period of acquisition by prescription necessary for the acquisition of ownership has expired before the date of the registration of transfer of ownership to the defendant, the subsequent possession shall be deemed as possession without fault as owner.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Equitables

Preferred Country and one other

Daejeon High Court Decision 62Na81 delivered on October 11, 1962, Daejeon High Court Decision 62Na81 delivered on October 11, 1962

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The gist of the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1 is as follows: (a) the lower court asserted that the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the forest land on the register of Defendant 1, which was owned for 10 years from February 10, 1947 to February 10, 1957 and acquired prescription by occupying the forest land portion in good faith; (b) but it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s transfer registration was passed under the name of Defendant 1, 1947, such as Defendant 1’s right, etc. for sale on the ground that the Plaintiff’s ownership was not at the beginning of possession; (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the period of possession of the former owner Kim Yong-ok and the Plaintiff’s possession period was 48 years, and that the Plaintiff had already acquired ownership of the forest land on the date of the above registration, which was 10 years prior to the date of prescription; and (d) the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no error in the misapprehension of prescription against the Plaintiff’s possession of the forest land on the ground of prescription.

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags