(a) Presumption of the shape of possession;

(b) Whether an heir who is merely ten years of age has frequently occupied the inherited land (affirmative)

(a) The possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own intent, and the presumption of possession with intention cannot be reversed or to be deemed to be the possession with intention of possession with the intention of not being recognized as the possessor of the right of possession.

B. Possessory right is transferred to an inheritor, and even if the defendant dies, even if his father is no longer over 10 years old, his father's possession is naturally occupied by the defendant due to his death, so his possession of the inherited land shall not be deemed to be possession frequently.

A. Article 197(1)(b) of the Civil Act

(a) en banc Decision 82Da708, 709, 82Meu1792, and 1793 Decided July 12, 1983 (Gong1983, 1248);

Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Ethical smoke, etc. and 10 others

Busan District Court Decision 90Na2342 delivered on July 27, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In the instant case, even though there is no dispute as to the registered facts in the instant case, it cannot be said that the fact was recognized by evidence and the reason is insufficient.

2. If a letter of guarantee or confirmation under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate is false, the registration of transfer of ownership shall be deemed null and void. However, the court below's finding that the letter of guarantee or confirmation of this case concerning the land stated 1 and 2 in the attached list of the judgment below is not recognized to be false, and it shall not be deemed that there is an error of law by the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing in the deliberation of

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the relocation of the land in the same list No. 2 of the defendant Dae-dong Agricultural Cooperatives, which was based on the above list No. 1 and No. 2, is without merit unless the registration of the preservation of the non-party 1 and No. 2's transfer title of the same list No. 1 and 2 is deemed null and void. In this regard, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that all the claims of this case

4. The reasoning of the court below that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant Song Young-dae for the land in the same list 3 is consistent with the substantive relationship is just, and even if the defendant Song-young had become aware of about 10 years of age around October, 1961, which was at the time of his father's death, his father's death, his possession cannot be deemed to have been occupied autonomously.

A possessor is presumed to have occupied the land in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own will, and the presumption of possession with intention cannot be reversed or deemed as possession with intention to hold it (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Da708, 709, 709, 82Meu1792, 1793, July 12, 1983). Since the possessor's right is transferred to his heir, the possessor's possession right is transferred to his heir, so the possessor's father's transfer of the defendant Song Young-gu occupies three land on the same list. If the defendant Song-young's heir of the above transfer of the transfer of the land, the above three land, which the defendant Song-young occupied, naturally, due to the death of the transfer of the above land, becomes the possession of the defendant Song-young representative.

The Supreme Court Decision (Law No. 76Da159 delivered on September 14, 1976) of the theory of the lawsuit is not appropriate in this case.

Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for the acquisition of prescription by possession without any evidence, or contrary to the rules of evidence.

5. The arguments are without merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the 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 Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)