(a) Whether or not the possessor’s proposal for purchase after the completion of the prescriptive acquisition can be deemed to have renounced the prescriptive benefit;

B. If the transfer registration of ownership made in a third party is null and void before the registration has been made in the future of the acquisitor after the completion of the prescription, the letter of claim for the acquisition by prescription against the third party

A. Even if the possessor accepts the purchase system from the other party, who is called as the right holder of the pertinent land after the expiration of the acquisition period, the possessor generally attempts to purchase in order to resolve a dispute between ownership and ownership even after the completion of the acquisition period, it cannot be deemed that the possessor expressed his/her intent to waive the benefit of prescription with the fact that he/she offered such a purchase system.

B. Even if a third party completed the registration of ownership transfer prior to the completion of the registration by possession of real estate, if the registration of the third party becomes null and void, the person who holds the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the acquisition can oppose the third party. Therefore, as a right to claim the registration of ownership transfer held by the owner at the time of the completion of the acquisition by prescription on behalf of the third party, seeking the cancellation of the registration of invalidation of the cause completed in the future of the third party, and also

A. Article 184(a) of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Da708, 709, 82Meu1792, 1793 Decided July 12, 1983, 82Da771 Decided February 25, 1986, and 85Meu2306 Decided August 19, 1986

Supreme Court Decision 201Na14888 delivered on August 201

Defendant 1 and 16 Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na217 decided July 2, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the land of this case was originally owned by the deceased non-party 1, who acquired the right to claim the transfer of ownership due to the completion of prescription on the land of this case on the expiration of the 20-year period from March 30, 1954 after the time when the time limit for acquisition by transfer was 1934, as the land of this case was originally owned by the deceased non-party 1, and was occupied as a road site. The plaintiff succeeded to the right of the above pro-Eup through reorganization of administrative district. The defendant 17 was to use the land of this case as the original owner of the land of this case on August 6, 1982 against the non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, who was the deceased non-party 1, and the registration was made by the court of appeal against the above non-party 1, which had not been made under the title of this case on the ground that the above right to claim the transfer of ownership on the land of this case on the ground of this case was revoked 17.

2. However, even if the possessor accepts the purchase of land by the other party, who is called the right holder of the land after the expiration of the acquisition period, the possessor generally attempts to purchase the land by simply resolving the dispute with the owner even after the completion of the acquisition period, it cannot be deemed that the possessor expressed his/her intent to waive the benefit of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Meu771, Feb. 25, 1986). Even if a third party completed the registration of ownership transfer before the completion of the acquisition by prescription due to possession of real estate, if the third party completed the registration of ownership transfer, if the registration in the name of the third party becomes invalid, the person entitled to the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer can oppose the third party after the completion of the acquisition period, and therefore, as a right to claim the registration of ownership transfer for the owner at the time of the completion of the acquisition period, which was void in the future by subrogation of the above third party, and also for the registration of ownership transfer for the above third party owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 19868).

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated and judged whether the registration of the above defendant 17 with respect to the land of this case is invalid or valid in accordance with the substantive relationship as alleged by the defendant, but it cannot be viewed as the other party to the waiver of the prescription interest without any deliberation and determination thereon, and held that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the waiver of the prescription interest or the other party to the waiver of the waiver of the prescription interest due to the completion of the prescription period and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts alleged in the assertion. Therefore, the argument is justified.

3. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court below without examining the remaining points, and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)