A. The case that does not recognize the fact of sale is against the rules of evidence

(b) Whether the purchase or possession was made by mistake as owned by the seller (affirmative)

A. The case that does not recognize the fact of sale is against the rules of evidence

B. The existence or non-existence of an intention in possession should be determined externally and objectively by the fact of the cause of possession acquisition, namely, in a case where the purchaser of the land acquires the possession of the land in accordance with the sales contract, the purchaser’s possession is deemed to be the owner’s intention, unless there exist any special circumstances, even if the purchase or sale cannot acquire the ownership of the land as the sale or purchase of another’s land.

A. Articles 187 and 393 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 245 and 198 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da469 Delivered on June 9, 1981

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-jin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Jae-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 80Na185 delivered on November 12, 1980

The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

First, I examine 2 points.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in determining the defendant's defense of prescriptive acquisition, the court below reasoned that the defendant was in possession of the office, night room, defense room, and warehouse under the defendant's jurisdiction around January 20, 1957, and that there is no dispute between the parties. The defendant's testimony of non-party 1, non-party 2, and non-party 3, which corresponds to the argument that the defendant acquired the land of this case from non-party 1 and possessed it by the non-party 1, and the non-party 4's testimony of the non-party 1, non-party 2, and the non-party 3's testimony of the non-party 1, the non-party 4's witness of the court of first instance, who corresponds to the argument that the non-party 1 occupies the land of this case and the defendant, who is an administrative agency, purchased the land for the construction of the office which is a public building, it does not conform to our ordinary rules of experience, and concluded a sales contract with the defendant's defense.

However, according to the records, the above non-party 1's testimony, which was rejected by the court below, was usually purchased from the non-party 5, his husband, and was sold to the defendant after the death of the non-party 5, and the above non-party 2's testimony was proved as No. 1 when the defendant purchased the land from the non-party 1 in order to use the land as the new building site for the non-party 1's office. The non-party 3's testimony, which was non-party 1's non-party 1's own land, was non-party 1's own land and it was non-party 1's own land as a witness. The non-party 1's testimony, which was non-party 1's own land, was non-party 1's own land and it was non-party 1's own land's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's dissenting opinion that it was non-party 1's own land.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the remaining grounds of appeal is omitted, and the part against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)