Since farmland has been purchased from the Government pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, the existing autonomous possession can not change into the possession of another owner, and it cannot be an object of prescriptive acquisition.

Since farmland has been purchased from the Government pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, the existing autonomous possession can not change into the possession of another owner, and it cannot be an object of prescriptive acquisition.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Busan City

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 70Na678 delivered on August 31, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant’s Attorney

We can not see the lower court's exclusive jurisdiction over the determination of the evidence and the fact-finding from the standpoint contrary to the original judgment. There is no reason to see the issue.

As to the Second Ground of Appeal:

It does not necessarily require that possession has been aware of it as ownership, and according to the statement of the person who is the witness of the lawsuit, this case was known to the so-called Dongwon High School by the exchange or donation of the land. Therefore, it may not be adopted.

As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff asserts that he acquired ownership of the land of this case from the defendant on December 31, 1943 and commenced possession. Thus, the original judgment was presumed to have been possessed as the owner without clarifying the title of the commencement of possession, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law that affected the original judgment.

The issue is groundless.

As to ground of appeal No. 4

In the statement of the witness Dol, it cannot be concluded that the original judgment was erroneous in adopting his testimony as evidence because the Busan City does not mean the school expenses of the Dong-gun, which is prior to the succession of the rights and obligations of the Busan City. It is not reasonable to discuss the issue.

As to ground of appeal No. 5

Since the farmland in this case was purchased from the government pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, it cannot be readily concluded that the existing autonomous possession changes into the possession of another owner due to the nature of the source of authority, and it cannot be concluded that the farmland purchased from the government pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act cannot be subject to acquisition of ownership due to the possession, and the precedents of the lawsuit are not appropriate for this case.

The issue is groundless.

As to ground of appeal No. 6

The issue can only be adopted because it argues conflicting facts with the original judgment. There is no reason for the argument.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet