A. Whether the possession of a seller after the sale of land is changed to that of a third party (affirmative with qualification)

(b) The nature of the possession of the remainder, in cases where the whole site he/she owned or occupied was sold, but only part of the site was believed to be the whole site, and the buyer was delivered with the knowledge of the remainder as part of the adjoining site (=self-ownership)

A. Since a seller of land is liable for the delivery of the sold land to a buyer, the possession after the sale is changed by the nature of the possession after the sale, but there are special circumstances.

B. Although the entire site he/she owned or occupied was sold, the entire part of the building site is believed to be entirely divided into the wall of the building, and only this part is delivered to the buyer, and there are special circumstances where the seller has occupied the remaining part with the knowledge of the part of the adjoining site, not the part of the sold site, as well as the part of the previous part, and where the seller has continuously occupied the other part, it is reasonable to interpret that the possession of the above part is not changed to the possession by the owner, but

Articles 197 and 245 of the Civil Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 92Da32456 delivered on December 24, 1992 (dong). Supreme Court Decision 68Da523 delivered on July 30, 1968 (Gong1988,586) Decision 92Da20064 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992,28888882)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court Decision 91Na8263, 8270 decided May 29, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal and supplement are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6

The assertion that the lot number of the instant site is not one of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△, which is the same as the △△△△△△△△△△△△, which was purchased by Nonparty 1, that the owner was Nonparty 2 at the time of March 10, 1958, that the first instance judgment recognized the purchase price as “40,000 won”, that the receipt of the said price was false, that the receipt of the said price was false, and that the division of December 30, 1979 as to the instant site was made at Nonparty 1’s request, is not in any relationship with the lower judgment that recognized that Defendant 1 acquired the prescription of the portion indicated in the attached draft(A) of the instant site, and that there was no reason according to the evidence adopted by the lower court, and thus,

2. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Since the fact of possession of real estate can be recognized regardless of the entry of the resident registration record card, the argument is without merit.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 8

Since a seller of land is liable for the delivery of the land sold to a buyer, the possession after the sale is changed to another owner's possession in its nature, except in special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1879, Feb. 23, 198). According to the facts acknowledged by the court below and the evidence adopted by the court below, the non-party 1 sold all of the land in this case he owned and occupied by the plaintiff, but the non-party 1 sold it to the plaintiff, but the attached drawing indication (B) of the court below's judgment, which is divided into the wall of the building, was delivered only to the plaintiff, with the belief that the attached drawing indication (B) of the court below, which is the wall of the building in this case, was delivered to the plaintiff, and the remaining part was known to the plaintiff as part of the adjacent site, not part of the building in this case, and therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the non-party 1 continued possession of the above part (A) as it does not change to another owner's possession, and therefore it still remains independent possession.

4. As to ground of appeal No. 9

The court below's decision is proper that the starting point of the prescriptive acquisition of this case is that the non-party 1 sold the site of this case to the plaintiff or the plaintiff made the registration of ownership transfer as the date of the registration of ownership transfer, and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit,

5. As to ground of appeal No. 7

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1 and his successors promised to remove the above section of the ground building and that their possession was not of peace and public performance. Therefore, it is without merit.

6. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.