Cases deemed to be negligent in good faith in the beginning of the commencement of possession of real estate acquisition by prescription;

In the beginning of the commencement of possession of real estate acquisition, it is recognized that there is negligence of good faith.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Egrification

Oral interference

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2744 delivered on April 14, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2744 delivered on July 14, 1967

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The judgment of the court below on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant-appellant does not recognize the fact that the real estate sales contract was concluded between the plaintiff-appellant and the non-party 1. Thus, even if the fact that the real estate sales contract was concluded between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant, the defendant did not have any ground to obtain ownership effective. The appeal to the court below cannot be adopted as a criticism on the original judgment on the premise that the defendant, who did not claim in the court below, purchased the real estate directly from the heir of

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The judgment below rejected the defendant's assertion on the acquisition of the ownership of the real estate held by the non-party 1 (Article 162 (2) of the Gu Residents Act) by possession for the 10-year period of possession. Even if the defendant's assertion is followed, it is difficult to say that the non-party 1 was bona fide because the non-party 2 was purchased from the non-party 1, who was the owner of the public record, without confirming whether the non-party 1 was alive or whether the non-party 1 purchased the real estate from the non-party 1. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1 purchased the real estate from the non-party 2 who purchased the real estate from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, and the non-party 1 was missing with the former owner's seal impression and registration documents, and that the non-party 2 acquired the real estate for the 196-year period of possession without the defendant's consent to the non-party 1's possession.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who did not decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, and reversed the original judgment, and ordered the original judgment to re-examine and decide on it.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong and Do-dong Do-won Round