Even though it has been occupied as the intention of possession by purchasing the property devolving upon the State from the possessor, such possession can not be regarded as the possession with the nature of the title.

Even if the property devolving upon the State has been purchased from the possessor and has been occupied with the intention of possession, Article 33 (Abolition) of the Military Administration Act orders the possessor of all the property devolving upon the State to keep it in custody for the State, such possession is not a possession with the nature of the title.

Military law No. 33, Article 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da2408, 2409 Decided December 29, 1967

Korea

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 70Na14 delivered on June 22, 1970

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff performer are as follows:

After recognizing the fact that the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the non-party 1 on November 12, 1945, when the building was removed from Japan, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3, who was the non-party 2, obtained the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant on June 16, 1950 through the non-party 2, the above registration is null and void in accordance with the military law No. 33, but the above non-party 2 occupied the building in good faith from the time when the building was purchased on June 25, 1946 to the non-party 1 and occupied it in good faith without any negligence from the time the building was purchased to the above non-party 3, and it was jointly and openly held in good faith with the intention to own it, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the prescriptive acquisition as of June 16, 1960 after the lapse of ten years from June 16, 1950.

However, as the military administration law orders the possessor of all the property belonging to the military administration to keep in custody for the sake of the country, even though the defendant's prior owner or non-party 2, who was the former owner, has occupied each building at his own will from the time of the purchase of each of the above items, such possession cannot be deemed possession by the nature of the title (see Supreme Court Decision 1955Da43, Aug. 11, 1955; Supreme Court Decision 67Da2408, 2409, Dec. 29, 1967). However, the judgment below that recognized it as possession by self-ownership was erroneous in the misapprehension of the above legal principles, and this affected the judgment, and thus, the original judgment shall be reversed.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng