beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.
Reasons
In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of prescription for the possession of the entire site of the instant reservoir. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim as to the 4/15 shares acquired by the Defendant on March 13, 1989 (hereinafter “instant shares”) among the instant reservoir sites, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim as to the remaining 11/15 shares.
Since only the Defendant appealed as to the part against which the Defendant lost, it is limited to whether the Plaintiff acquired prescription as to the share in this case.
Basic Facts
This Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (1.1.). Thus, this Court's reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(C) The Plaintiff’s possession of the instant reservoir site from December 31, 1974 was recognized to have been occupied by the deceased G from December 31, 1974, and the Plaintiff’s possession is presumed to have been occupied in peace and openly and openly by the intention of ownership.
If the nature of source of possessory right of real estate is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the real estate in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own will pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. However, in cases where it is proved that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission despite the knowledge of the absence of legal act or any other legal requirements that may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, barring any special circumstance, the possessor shall be deemed not to have rejected the ownership of another person and to have no intention to possess it. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intention to own is broken and Supreme Court Decision 198Do811, Aug. 2