Whether the possession of a third party is the sole fact that the possessor, after the expiration of the period of acquisition by prescription, delivered compensation for a part of the land to the original owner or transferred the land to another owner, and paid the money as the occupancy charge for the land (negative)

The possessor is presumed to have occupied in peace and openly with the intention of possession, and even if he had completed registration during the period of acquisition by prescription and delivered compensation for losses due to the incorporation of part of the land into a road, or transferred the land to the original owner during the period of acquisition by transfer, and paid the money for the occupation and use of the land, he/she cannot be deemed to have occupied the land solely on such fact.

Articles 197 and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney White-il et al., Counsel for the appointed party-appellant

Kim Jong-gu

Cheongju District Court Decision 89Na1910, 1927 (Counterclaim) delivered on September 13, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter the defendant) occupied the above land from around 1966 to the date when the farmland improvement project was completed with the erroneous knowledge that the land in this case was substituted to the defendant, and determined that the defendant acquired the above land by prescription on January 1, 1987 after the lapse of at least 20 years from the time of commencement of the possession of the above land in this case where there is no proof as to the opposing fact, since the defendant is presumed to have occupied the above land in peace and openly with the intent to own the above land during the aforementioned

In comparison with the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence and the incomplete hearing as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit

In addition, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the land in peace and openly with his intention, and even if he had already acquired the ownership through the completion of the period of acquisition by completing the registration during the period of acquisition, and then delivered compensation for losses due to the incorporation of part of the land in this case into the road, or transferred the land to the original owner at the end of the transfer, and paid the money into the form of land occupation and use fees between them, such possession cannot be deemed to have been occupied by another owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu5843, Apr. 11, 1989). There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof pointing out in the theory of lawsuit in the lower judgment

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 on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)