Cases of misunderstanding the nature of possession of a grave base;

Any person who installs or owns a grave on another's land shall not be presumed to possess the grave in the nature of the possession.

Articles 197 and 245 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Countries

Jeju District Court Decision 65Na19 delivered on January 31, 1966

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Jeju District Court Panel Division.

Based on evidence, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was a son of the non-party, the non-party, and the non-party's son of the non-party in this case for about 200 years prior to the establishment of a grave on the land, and his son up to the plaintiff. However, barring any other special circumstances, the person who installed or owned a grave on the land of another person shall be deemed to possess the land of another person only to the extent necessary for the preservation and management of the grave, and in this case, the intention of possession shall not be presumed to be its own possession

However, the court below determined that the plaintiff, as the plaintiff's own intention, possessed the land of this case without recognizing the existence of special circumstances, but only he managed the grave, that the plaintiff, the non-party's subordinate to the non-party to Kim Gim-si, possessed the land of this case as his own intention, and that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the nature of the person who installed or owned the grave of another person's land, or the possession of the grave base.

Since the appeal on this point is reasonable, it is not necessary to wait for a decision on the argument of another appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-sub (Presiding Judge)