Whether the purchase owner has frequently occupied if the purchase owner has been rejected.

The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff had possession of forest land on the premise that the plaintiff purchased the forest land on the premise that it was possessed by the intention of ownership cannot be viewed as possession with the intention of possession on the ground of the nature of the possessor's possession right.

Articles 245 and 197 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2289 Delivered on July 14, 1981

Attorney Park Byung-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na955 delivered on December 11, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to Section 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's above assertion on the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's assistance or assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance and assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff's assistance in the plaintiff

With respect to Section 2:

As legally determined by the court below, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's shipbuilding or shipbuilding had possession of the forest land on the premise that the plaintiff purchased the forest land on the part of the plaintiff, unless it is acknowledged that the plaintiff's shipbuilding or shipbuilding had no purchase of the forest land on the part of the plaintiff, is justified, and since there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff's fleet or the plaintiff expressed that the plaintiff occupied the forest on the part of the plaintiff's owner as the owner's intent to own, the possession of the forest land on the part of the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been possessed on the part of the owner's own intention due to the nature of the title, and therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's letter

Therefore, 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 judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)