The case holding that there is room to deem that the ownership of the forest in which a grave is installed and managed has been acquired by prescription.

The case holding that, on the forest land which is not larger than 6,645 square meters in size, there are 9-years of a possessor from the Japanese colonial era to the large area, graves, such as the high-water tank, ancient-mar, fluorry tank, fluorry tank, sculpture, fluor, sculpture, fluor, and lodging room; on the other hand, there have been a large amount of dry field and house of 100 square meters developed; on the other hand, there have been a large number of old field and houses over 100 years received unlike surrounding forests; on the other hand, descendants, such as the possessor, etc., left the grave every year and let the mountainous district, etc. manage seedlings and old field, etc.; on the other hand, after having the mountainous district, etc. grow in the forest and adjacent land and cultivated the area reclaimed as dry field, there has been sufficient room to deem that the forest and adjacent land were built as a fence by the possessor of such forest and land as possession and performance.

Article 245(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Park Ho-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Chuncheon District Court Decision 97Na52 delivered on July 4, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim seeking cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the forest of this case under the defendant's name and confirmation of ownership of the forest of this case on the premise that the plaintiff succeeded to the forest of this case, which was originally owned by the plaintiff's father, on the ground that the above non-party 1 was not sufficient to recognize that the forest of this case is owned by the plaintiff and there is no other evidence. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. The ground of appeal on this point is not acceptable.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the forest of this case as owned by Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff on January 1, 1960 on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the forest of this case with the intention of possession from January 1, 1960 and occupied the forest of this case, and the Plaintiff acquired ownership transfer registration on the ground that the acquisition by prescription was completed on January 1, 1980 by succeeding the possession of the forest of this case after the Plaintiff died.

However, according to the records, the forest land of this case is a forest with a wide size of 6,645 square meters, which is not larger than the area of the 6,00 square meters, and there is a grave of 9 lines, such as the Plaintiff's high-light, ancient-breging, additional-breging, increased-breging, lighting, lighting, cooking, cooking, cooking, and lodging room. On the other hand, there is a dry field and a house of 100 square meters reclaimed, and the remaining forest land has been received for more than 10 years, unlike neighboring forests. The above deceased and the Plaintiff et al., were fluords of the above deceased and the Plaintiff et al. were al. to make the mountain land of this case and to cultivate the area of the forest of this case which was reclaimed by the dry field, and the fact that the fence of this case and the neighboring land were built.

In the same way, there is sufficient room to view that the deceased and the plaintiff had occupied the forest of this case as their owner's intention in a peaceful and public performance before around 1960 of the plaintiff's assertion. However, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim for the acquisition of prescription simply without examining it in detail on the location, area, or dry field, such as dry field, house, fence, etc. in the forest of this case, and the location, area, or dry field, field, house, fence, etc. in the field of this case, and the time and circumstances when fences are installed, etc., and it cannot be ruled out that the court below erred by failing to properly examine it, or by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)