beta
Main Issues
The negligence of the good faith required for the expiration of the acquisition period of real estate under the former Civil Code for 10 years is sufficient to recognize it at the beginning of the possession even if there has been the succession of the possession.
Summary of Judgment
The negligence of the good faith required for the expiration of the acquisition period of real estate under the former Civil Code for 10 years is sufficient to recognize it at the beginning of the possession even if there has been the succession of the possession.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 245 of the Civil Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 66Da1151 delivered on September 20, 1966
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and appellant
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1 and one other
Defendant-Appellee
Defendant 1
Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)-Appellee
Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 2
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 69Na66, 69Na67 delivered on October 31, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na67 delivered on October 31, 1969
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
Reasons
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s ground of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3:
Under the Gu Residents Act, the effect of the change of the acquisition and loss of real rights under Article 10 (1) of the Civil Code shall take place along with the sales contract, and even if the change of the acquisition and loss of real rights becomes null and void, it shall not lose the right to claim registration as the obligatory effect of the sales contract, and in the case of the completion of the acquisition by prescription, it shall be recognized pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Addenda of the Civil Code, that is, the right to acquire real rights after the lapse of the prescription period under the provisions of the Gu Residents Act, even though the acquisition of real rights has become null and void pursuant to the provisions of the above Article 8 of the Addenda of the Civil Code. Therefore, it shall not be the ground for the acquisition of real rights, and the right to claim registration under the above rights shall be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 66Da1151, Sept. 20, 196; 66Da163, Apr. 4, 1967).
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