(a) A method to recommend a title holder of a registration invalid for a person who has acquired prescription against a real estate;

(b) Time of possession by a person who acquires possessory right by inheritance; and

A. Since the prescriptive acquisitor due to the possession of real estate only has the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer against the true owner at the time of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, the prescriptive acquisitor cannot claim the registration of ownership transfer based on the prescriptive acquisition, apart from the fact that he/she can claim the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer based on the prescriptive acquisition by subrogation of the above owner.

(b) If possessory right is acquired by inheritance, the inheritor may not claim his possession regardless of the possession of the inheritee, unless he commences his own possession with a new title.

A. Article 245(1) of the Civil Act; Articles 193 and 199 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2306 Decided August 19, 1986 (Gong1986, 1216) (Gong1986, 1216) 91Da4329 Decided March 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1290). Supreme Court Decision 92Da22602, 22619 Decided September 22, 1992 (Gong192, 2979)

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 92Na7198 delivered on January 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. If the cause of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 1 on the instant land is null and void as in the lawsuit, the person who acquired the prescription due to possession of real estate only has the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer against the actual owner at the time of the completion of the prescription. Thus, even if the Plaintiff acquired the said land by prescription, the Plaintiff may not claim the registration of ownership transfer for the Defendant based on the prescriptive acquisition, in addition to the fact that the Plaintiff can seek the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the above Nonparty 1, the invalidation of the cause by subrogation of the said owner, and the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer based on the title of the Defendant.

Therefore, even if there is an error of mistake of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, as argued in the theory of facts concerning the fact-finding of the court below as to the point of points out of the theory, it cannot be affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the argument about this issue is without merit.

2. As determined by the court below, if the registration of ownership transfer in the above non-party 1's name on October 28, 1948 concerning the above land cannot be deemed null and void, the heir can not leave the possession of the deceased or assert only his own possession unless he starts his own possession with a new title (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da22602, 22619, Sept. 22, 1992) unless he begins the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription, unless the third party makes the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription, the owner of the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer cannot claim the acquisition by prescription against the third party unless the third party becomes null and void. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that he commenced the registration of ownership transfer with a new title, without proof, that the starting point of the registration of ownership transfer of this case's land was completed by the non-party 2, who is the deceased, with the lapse of the period of prescription of 160 years after the expiration of the acquisition period of prescription of 196.

The judgment of the court below does not contain any error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)