(a) Whether the possessor loses possession of the part of land, where convenience is provided for access to the bathing beach parking lot by some of the land occupied (negative);

(b) Extinctive prescription of a claim for ownership transfer registration due to completion of prescription;

(a) If a possessor provides convenience in traffic to enable access to a bathing beach parking lot through part of the land occupied, such provision of convenience in traffic cannot be deemed to have lost possession of the land solely on the ground that such provision of convenience in traffic has lost;

B. As for the right to claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the completion of prescription, the extinctive prescription does not run while the possessor continues possession, and as long as the possessor acquired the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the expiration of the prescription period, the right to claim ownership transfer registration already acquired is not extinguished unless it can be seen as a waiver of the prescription interest, even if possession of the real estate is suspended after

(a)Article 245(a) of the Civil Code; Article 192(2)(b) of the Civil Code; Articles 166(1) and 184 of the Civil Code;

B. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu3618 decided Apr. 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 807)

Attorney Im Chang-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Jeju District Court Decision 89Na107 delivered on July 5, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff cultivated the real estate in this case, which is the father of the plaintiff's father, and married to Kim Jong-soo on August 30, 1958, and gave a donation to the plaintiff around that time. The plaintiff directly cultivated the real estate in this case and let the non-party 11-19 land among the land in this case, which is the plaintiff's omission, grow in place of the distance, and had the non-party 1-1 of the non-party 1 of the non-party 1 of the non-party 1 of the non-party 1 of the non-party 1 of the non-party 1 of the non-party 1 of the non-party 1 of the non-party 1 of the non-party 1971 cultivate the land in this case as an access road to the parking lot of the Haduknam-ri Bathe Beach, and has occupied and managed the remaining land through the above death. The plaintiff from around 1979 was presumed to have occupied the above real estate as owner's intention.

In addition, the plaintiff provided part of 11-19 land among the land in this case as an access road to the bathing beach parking lot. However, according to the records, the plaintiff seems to have provided convenience of passage to the above parking lot through the above part of the land. Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff lost possession of the land only by offering convenience of passage, so there is no error of incomplete deliberation as to the acquisition of prescriptive prescription in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, with respect to the right to claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the completion of prescription, the extinctive prescription does not run during the continuance of possession by the possessor, and once the possessor acquires the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the expiration of the prescription period, the right to claim ownership transfer registration is not extinguished unless the possessor can be seen as waiver of the prescription interest even if possession of the real estate is suspended after the expiration of the prescription period, and the judgment of the court below with the same purport is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles

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 Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)