Whether the presumption of an independent possession can be deemed to have been reversed or as an independent possession where the title of the possession alleged by the possessor is denied.

Even in cases where the possessor asserts his/her right to possession, such as sale and purchase or donation, but this is not recognized, insofar as the burden of proving the right to possession does not originally exist in the possessor, the presumption of possession with the reason that the possessor is not recognized as the possessor cannot be deemed to be reversed or as the possessor is in the nature of the possessor’s source of possession.

Articles 197 and 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Da708, 709, 82Meu1792, 1793 decided July 13, 1983 (wholly agreed upon), Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1523 Decided December 13, 1983

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and six others, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na2551 delivered on February 17, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are also examined.

With respect to the First Ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the real estate of this case was originally registered in the name of the deceased non-party 1, but after the death of the deceased on December 10, 1954, each of the registrations was made in the future of the defendants, and dismissed the defendants' assertion that the registration made in the future of the defendants is valid in accordance with the substantive relations as stated in the

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is just and acceptable, and the court below ordered the defendants to cancel each of the registrations on the basis of the above facts is conducted after the above non-party 1, who is the original registered titleholder, died, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the registration conforms to the substantive relations. Thus, it cannot be understood that the registration is a registration of invalid without cause. Thus, it is not possible to understand that the registration is a registration of invalid without cause, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the presumption power of registration, as alleged in the above.

With respect to the second ground:

Even in cases where the possessor asserts the right of possession, such as sale and purchase or donation, but this is not recognized, the presumption of possession with the sole reason that the possessor is not recognized as the possessor, or it cannot be deemed as the possession with the nature of the possessor, unless the possessor bears the burden of proof as to the right of possession with respect to the right of possession with respect to the title of possession with respect to the possession with intention to hold it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Da708,709, Jul. 12, 1983; 82Meu1792,

In addition, even though the above judgment is presumed to have an intention to hold as the requirement for acquisition by prescription as explained by the court below even though it is presumed that the owner has an intention to hold as the requirements for acquisition by prescription, it cannot be deemed to have violated the purport of the above judgment, since it is not necessarily contrary to the purport of the above judgment, since the owner's intention to hold as the owner is determined according to the nature of the title of possession, or the possessor has expressed his intention to hold

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the registration of the defendant 4 and the defendant 3 was made illegally, and that the possession was commenced from that time, and that the remaining defendants and the non-party 2 did not have expressed their intent to own the real estate, and that each possession of the real estate of this case was made without their intent to own the land of this case. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the party members' possession or by violating the rules of evidence. The court below determined that the registration made in the defendant 4 and the defendant 3 was made illegally after the death of the above non-party 1, and based on the evidence and the contents of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as stated by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the documents were made after the death of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 did not explain the illegal contents in detail, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)