Whether or not a person who acquired an ownership of real estate again intends to purchase it due to the completion of prescription and

Even if there is a fact that a person who acquired ownership of real estate with the completion of prescription intends to purchase it again to resolve a dispute over ownership, it cannot be readily concluded that there is no intention to own it thereafter.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1399, 1400 Decided January 26, 1965

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na2160 delivered on April 21, 1978

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the records, the attorney of the plaintiff et al. presented the same argument as the theory of lawsuit Nos. 12-1 through 3 as evidence from March 8, 1978 of the same year as stated on the fifth day for pleading at the court below's fifth day for pleading, and submitted Gap evidence Nos. 12-1 through 3 as evidence, but the court below did not make a decision thereon. However, according to the reasoning of the court below, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the conclusion that the plaintiff et al. purchased the forest land of this case owned by the defendant No. 2 from the deceased non-party No. 2 on July 7, 1946 and paid the price at 5,60 won at the time, after the plaintiff et al. was transferred and taken over, and the fact that the above defendant, the grandchild, even after his death, was hard to gather the above recognition with the evidence of the plaintiff's remaining evidence, and it cannot be determined that it did not have any intention to purchase the real estate again since 160 years of prescription.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is clear that the registration of transfer of ownership on October 6, 1970 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land under Defendant 2 as to the forest land of this case was null and void as a double registration, and thus, it is not necessary to further determine whether it is valid.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)