(a) A case where the estimated ability to presume the ownership transfer registration made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership Transfer is broken;

(b) Whether the possessor, after the expiration of the period for acquisition by prescription, can be deemed as the possessor on board;

(c) Whether or not the presumption of possession with intention to hold as an owner may be reversed or considered as another owner in a case where the title of the possession alleged by the possessor has been denied;

1. Where the registration of transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094) has been made with a false certificate issued under Article 10 of the same Act by means of a false statement, such presumption ability

2. Even if the possessor proposes the purchase of land to the other party after the expiration of the acquisition period, the possessor generally attempts to purchase in order to resolve a dispute with the owner, even after the completion of the acquisition period, in light of the fact that the possessor has made such a proposal, the possession of the said possessor cannot be deemed as the possession of the third party.

3. The presumption of possession with the sole reason that the possessor is not recognized as the possessor, even though he asserted the title of possession, such as the purchase and sale or the gift, but this has not been confirmed, cannot be reversed or considered as the possession with the nature of the possessor, unless the possessor bears the burden of proof as to the title of the possession with the intention to hold it.

Articles 197 and 245 of the Civil Act; Articles 7 and 10 of the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Real Estate Ownership;

1. Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Meu514 Decided February 14, 1984 (Gong726, 500); 82Da708, 709, 82Meu1792, and 1793 Decided July 12, 1983 (Gong712, 1248 Decided July 12, 1983)

Kim Jong-in et al.

Kim Jong-hwan

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was made on December 30, 1967 by the Cheongju District Court No. 28601, May 10, 1979, with respect to the 1,554 square meters in Cheongju-si 378 Opju-dong 378 square meters to the plaintiffs.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The land category was changed to an orchard on the land cadastre on September 7, 1978, and the land category was changed to an orchard on May 10, 1979 (hereinafter the real estate in this case was changed to an orchard even on the land cadastre on September 7, 1978, although the original land category was changed to an orchard on the land cadastre, Cheongju-si 378, Cheongju-si, 378, Cheongju-si (hereinafter the real estate in this case was changed to an orchard), and the land was registered as the same person on the land cadastre on December 31, 1966 as the registration was made only on the land cadastre on the land cadastre without being unregistered, and the registration was made on December 31, 196 on the land cadastre No. 16507 on December 31, 196, the registration of the ownership transfer of the defendant was made on May 10, 197 by the plaintiffs under the Act on Special Measures for the Ownership and Sale of Real Estate (No. 30, etc.).

2. Each statement of Gap evidence No. 2-2 (Guarantee), Gap evidence No. 2-1 (Delivery of Certificate No. 5), Gap evidence No. 5-1 (criminal record No. 2), 4, 6,7,9,12,13, and14 (each statement No. 6, 12, 14) of the witnesses, and each statement of this case's destruction of the above real estate at the place where the above witness's 6,12,13, and 14 were located and the above witness's testimony No. 5 (except those which were not trusted after the testimony of the above witness No. 5-2, 6, 13, 14), which was recorded on the above real estate no dispute over the establishment of the above evidence No. 1-2 (No. 7, 1979) and which was recorded on the above real estate register at the time of this case's acquisition of the above real estate by the defendant's 1-year Kim Jong-ri or 14, the above real estate's of this case's Y.

According to the above facts, the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of the defendant with respect to the real estate of this case was made by obtaining a false letter of guarantee and confirmation under the Act on Special Measures, and barring any special circumstance, the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of the defendant shall be completed with the registration of

3. The defendant, at around 1916, occupied the real estate of this case from the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 5's 1916 after purchasing the real estate from the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 5's view, acquired prescription for not less than 20 years, and thereafter, the non-party 1, a father of the defendant, donated to the defendant, and accordingly, the above transfer of ownership registered in the future of the defendant is effective registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, it is not acknowledged that the non-party 1, who was the non-party 1, purchased the real estate of this case from the non-party 5's 8 (Statement), 10 (Investigation Protocol), 3-1, 2 (each transcript of the evidence), and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was the non-party 6's heir of the above real estate of this case from the above 9's 1, 196-year Kim Jong-won's possession of the real estate of this case.

4. The plaintiffs' possession of the real estate in this case by the non-party Kim Tae, who is the defendant's deceased father, was occupied by the above real estate in the Cheongju-dong 93-1 forest land adjacent to the real estate in this case. The Kim Jong-dong 93-1 grave was installed, which is the deceased's predecessor, and since the above yellow tree days were residing in the above 100 square meters away from this place, the non-party 1, who is the relatives of the above yellow tree trees, delegated the above Kim Jong-tae to the above Kim Jong-tae for the purchase of the above grave and for that consideration, it was occupied by the defendant's possession of the real estate in this case by entrusting the above Kim Jong-tae with the purchase of the above grave, and the defendant suggested to purchase the real estate in this case with the above 20,000,000 won, and the defendant's possession of the real estate after the expiration of the prescription period of 16,000,000 won for each of the above 16,01,01,01, respectively.

5. The intention of possession, which is the requirement for possession with intention of possession, should be objectively determined by the nature of the source of possessor's right which is the cause of acquisition with intention of possession. However, if the nature of possessor's right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have possession with intention of possession, and even if the possessor asserted the title of possession such as the sale and purchase, but this is not acknowledged, the presumption of possession with intention of possession cannot be reversed or it cannot be deemed to have been the possession with intention of possession with the nature of the source of possessor's right. According to the above facts of recognition, it is presumed that the above non-party Kim Jong-tae was occupied with intention of possession with intention of possession, peace, and public performance from 1916 to 1936.12.31, 1936. Accordingly, the acquisition by prescription of the real property of this case by the defendant with respect to the real property of this case, since the above attitude of acquisition by prescription has died on June 10, 1959, the title of the defendant's above real property was valid.

6. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims of this case seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the premise that the above transfer registration of ownership in the future of the defendant with respect to the real estate in this case is null and void is all without merit, and it is dismissed and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them

Judges Kim Jong-soo