(a) Requirements for establishing a confession;

B. The burden of proving the possession with respect to the prescriptive acquisition

(c) The form of possession of a person who cultivates farmland of his wife as a fish farm;

(a)a confession shall be made when the other party has made a statement recognizing facts disadvantageous to himself and consistent with the contents of the other party’s statement or invoked by the other party;

B. In the case of acquisition by prescription, the intention of possession, which is the requirement for possession with intention to hold it objectively, is determined by the nature of the source of possessory right, but if the nature of the source of possessory right is unclear, it is presumed to be possession with intention to hold it independently pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the possessor is not liable to prove the nature of the source of possessory right to support possession with no responsibility to prove the nature of the source of possessory

C. If it is reasonable to view that Nonparty (A), who asserts prescriptive acquisition, was a member of his family living together with the wife of the household while living together, who cultivated the instant land as a member of his family, or cultivated the instant land on behalf of a frighter, or on behalf of a frighter, or cultivated on behalf of a frighter for the frighter, the said Nonparty should be deemed to be an mere possession assistant or possession by nature of the frighteral source.

A. Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act. Paragraph 1 of Article 197 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Meu1792, 1793 Decided July 12, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

Busan High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on August 1, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na3399 delivered on November 30, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. The Defendants’ attorney’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

The confession is established when the party's statement recognizes facts unfavorable to himself/herself, and is consistent with the other party's statement or invoked by the other party. According to the records, the plaintiff's statement of May 10, 1983, 194, which was pointed out by the plaintiff's theory, is only the land of this case and the plaintiff's farmland owned by the non-party's father, the non-party's father, the non-party's father around August 10, 1940 was small at 633 square meters. It is difficult to see that such a statement is disadvantageous to the plaintiff. Thus, it is hard to see that the plaintiff's statement was disadvantageous to the plaintiff, and there is no trace of the defendant's assertion. Thus, there is no error of law of finding facts contrary to the confession in the judgment of the court below

In addition, according to the records, we find that the non-party 1, the father of the plaintiff, did not donate the land of this case to the non-party 1, the plaintiff's father, and there is no violation of law in the process of evidence preparation, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the above fact-finding of the court below.

2. We examine the ground of appeal No. 3.

In the case of acquisition by prescription, the intention of possession, which is the requirement for possession with intention to hold it objectively, is determined by the nature of the source of possessory right, but if the nature of the source of possessory right is unclear, it is presumed to be the possession with intention to hold it independently pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that the possessor is not liable to prove the nature of the source of possessory right to support the possession with no responsibility to prove the nature of the source of possessory right, and that the other party who claims it is the possession with the burden of proof as to the possession with intention to hold it, by returning the legal presumption above (Supreme Court Decision

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defense of the acquisition by prescription on the ground that the possession by Nonparty 1 constitutes a principal possession in the nature of title, at least until the completion of the registration of ownership transfer, on the ground that: (a) Nonparty 1’s possession constitutes a third party possession, on the ground that the period of acquisition by prescription has expired on August 9, 1959, since Nonparty 1 occupied and cultivated the land in this case in peace and openly from August 10, 1939 to his will; and (b) Nonparty 1 did not receive a donation from the deceased; (c) Nonparty 1 independently cultivated the land in this case before the Plaintiff was missing; and (d) Nonparty 1 independently cultivated the land in this case before the Plaintiff became missing; and (e) the Plaintiff’s whereabouts is unknown; and (e) Nonparty 1’s ownership transfer registration was completed on December 29, 19

However, only that Nonparty 1 did not receive a donation from Nonparty 1 who was the owner of the instant land, it cannot be viewed as possession by the nature of the possessory right.

However, according to the evidence admitted by the court below, around August 10, 1939, when Nonparty 1 started to cultivate the land of this case, the deceased is 60 years of age, and the plaintiff is merely 8 years of age, and the above non-party 1 is acknowledged to have cultivated the real estate of this case while living together with the non-party 2, who is the third father of the above non-party deceased, by marriage with the non-party 2, who is the third father of the above non-party deceased, and the above non-party 1 is recognized to have cultivated the real estate of this case by living together with the non-party 1, like the decision of the court below, and the above non-party 1 is not a donation of the land of this case to the non-party 1 as a member of his family living together with his wife or as a head of his family, it may be deemed that the above non-party 1 cultivated the land of this case or cultivated the land for the non-party on behalf of the plaintiff.

However, it is not clear whether the lower court, based on the nature of the source of possessory right, determined that the source of possessory right was occupied by taking into account the following factors: (a) the process of acquiring possession of the land in this case by Nonparty 1; (b) the attitude of possession; and (c) the relationship with the owner, etc.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the possession independently, or in the absence of reasons, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)