Cases where the intent to own as the requirement for prescriptive acquisition has been denied;

Since an owner leased real estate to a private teaching institute, which is a civic school curriculum, to use it as a site, and thereafter a national school is established at the same place and the private teaching institute is abolished, in acquiring all the site of the private teaching institute, the above real estate has been occupied and used since it was acquired together at that time, and as such, the above owner continuously claimed rent for the above real estate with the above national school without the prior consent of the above owner or any other special agreement, if the owner claimed rent for the above real estate with the above national school, it cannot be deemed that it occupied the above real estate with the intention to own it, and thus, it did not meet the requirements for prescriptive acquisition.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap5796) in the first instance trial

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

Defendant 1, 5-3 shares, Defendant 2-3 shares, and 5-1 shares of each of the five-minutes of shares in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, 222-389, will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of prescription on January 15, 1966.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The real estate stated in the purport of the claim (the foregoing real estate was originally owned by the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the supporting part of the defendant's inheritance, and since January 15, 1946, when the plaintiff Hasan National School was established, it occupied and used as a school site and reached the present time, and as the non-party 1 died on February 27, 1953, the non-party 2, the defendant's denial network non-party 2, inherited the property at the same time as the family inheritance, and again the non-party 2 died on November 25, 1963. Thus, there is no dispute between the facts that the real estate of this case was registered as the joint ownership of the defendant, etc. (the shares of the defendant 3/5, defendant 3, and 21/5) as of November 25, 1963.

However, since Nonparty 1, who was the owner of the real estate in this case, sold the real estate in this case to Nonparty 1, a Japanese, and used it as a Japanese military base, the Plaintiff was newly established on January 15, 1946, and thereafter, the Plaintiff occupied the land in a peaceful manner for 20 years since its use as the site, and acquired the ownership of the real estate in this case after its prescription period expired on January 15, 1966.

그러나 원심증인 소외 3과 당심증인 소외 4의 각 증언만으로는 원고가 이사건 부동산을 소유의 의사로 점유하여 왔다는 점을 인정하기에 미흡하고 달리 이를 뒷받침할 증거가 없을뿐더러 도리어 원심증인 소외 5와 당심증인 소외 6의 각 증언을 모두어 보면 소외 1이 1943년경 공민학교 교육과정인 면목학원이 설립되자 그 학원에 이사건 부동산을 그 부지로 사용하도록 임대하였던 바, 1946.1.15.경 그 자리에 위 면목국민학교가 설립되고, 위 학원이 폐지되면서 그 학원의 교사부지일체를 인수함에 있어 이사건 부동산도 그 때에 함꼐 인수하여 이래 점유사용하여오면서 이에 대하여 소외 1의 사전 승낙을 받거나 달리 그와 특별한 약정도 맺은 일이 없이 계속하여 사용하자 소외 1은 1948.12.경부터 1950.12.경에 이르기까지 2,3차 위 국민학교에 와서 이사건 부동산에 대한 임대료를 청구한 사실을 인정할 수 있는 바이니 이에 비추어 볼 때 원고는 이사건 부동산을 소유의 의사로 점유하여 온 것이라고 볼 수 없어 시효취득의 요건을 갖추지 못하였다 할 것이므로 다른점에 관하여 더 판단할 나위도 없이 원고의 주장은 이유없다 할 것이다.

Therefore, the claim of this case seeking the registration of ownership transfer on the premise of the acquisition of prescription against the real estate in this case is unfair and dismissed, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost, and they are so decided as per

Judges Jeon Soo-dae (Presiding Judge)