A. Whether the change of ownership on the registry before the expiration of the period of prescription for the acquisition of real estate constitutes a ground for suspending the prescription for the acquisition of possession (negative)

B. Whether the peace and public performance of possession under Article 245 of the Civil Act is lost due to disputes such as the payment of rent or demand for purchase from a person who asserts that the possession is illegal (negative)

A. In the prescriptive acquisition of the ownership of real estate by possession, the reason for the interruption of the prescriptive acquisition should be the reason that it can be recognized that the ownership in the register has been destroyed by the continued possession, and even if the ownership in the register has been changed before the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period, it cannot be said that the existing state of possession has been destroyed by it, and therefore, it cannot be the reason for the interruption of

B. For the purpose of Article 245 of the Civil Act, the term “a peaceful possession” means a possession in which the possessor does not use a imprudent act that is not legally acceptable in the acquisition or possession of possession. The term “public performance occupancy” refers to a possession that is not a possession of possession. Thus, even if there was a dispute, such a fact alone cannot be said to lose the peace and performance of such possession, even if there was a demand from a person who asserts that the possession is illegal to pay rent or purchase the real estate over several occasions.

(a) Article 247(b) of the Civil Act; Articles 245 and 197(1) of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 75Da220,2221 delivered on March 9, 1976 (Gong1976,9059) 79Da789 delivered on July 10, 1979 (Gong1982,105) 92Da6983 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong192,1691)

[Defendant-Counterclaim] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant, Counsel for defendant-Counterclaim defendant-appellee

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Won-won, Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na31066, 91Na31073 (Counterclaim) decided October 28, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. We examine the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Defendant 2)’s ground of appeal No. 1.

In acquiring the ownership of real estate by possession, the reason for suspending the prescriptive acquisition should be the reason that it can be recognized that the existing state of possession is to be destroyed continuously, and even if the name of ownership on the real estate registration injury was changed before the expiration of the period of prescriptive acquisition, it cannot be said that the existing state of possession was destroyed continuously, so it cannot be the reason for suspending the prescriptive acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Da2220, 2221, Mar. 9, 1976; 79Da789, Jul. 10, 1979).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or lack of reasoning.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that since the non-party and the defendant were the legitimate owner of the real estate of this case immediately after the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party and the defendant was made successively, each possession of the real estate of this case by the plaintiffs of this case was converted into the possession of the real estate of this case or suspended the prescription thereof, on the ground that the above plaintiffs were hard to believe that the above non-party and the defendant were the owner of the real estate of this case and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Upon examining the evidence relation prepared by the court below according to the records, the court below's above measures are acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory

3. We examine the ground of appeal No. 3.

According to Article 245 of the Civil Act, the possession is a possession that does not use any imprudent act that is not legally acceptable in acquiring or holding such possession. The term “public performance occupancy” refers to a possession that is not a possession of any imprudent. Thus, even if there was a dispute, such a fact alone cannot be said to have lost the peace and performance of such possession, even if there was a demand from a person who asserts that such possession is illegal to pay rent or purchase the real estate over several occasions, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or inconsistent reasoning, such as the theory of lawsuit.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)