The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. When calculating the period of acquisition by prescription, if the owner of the relevant real estate changes during the period of possession, the claimant for the period of acquisition by prescription may not assert the completion of prescription on the ground that he/she arbitrarily selects the starting point of counting or occupies it for at least 20 years retroactively, and the court recognizes the starting time of real possession as recognized by the litigation data without seeking a party’s assertion, and determine the propriety of the assertion for the period of acquisition by prescription based thereon;

(2) The Majority Opinion argues that the acquisition by prescription is complete, and that the acquisition by prescription is complete, and that a person who asserts the completion of the acquisition by prescription is entitled to assert only his/her own possession or his/her own possession and that of the former possessor, and that he/she is entitled to assert both his/her own possession and that of the former possessor. In addition, even in cases where the former possessor’s possession is claimed at the same time, the former possessor’s possession cannot be determined at any time of the latter possessor’s possession at any time during the period of possession. However, in cases where the former possessor’s possession is claimed, the former possessor cannot be said to have been selected at any time of the latter possessor’s possession at any time during the period of possession. This legal doctrine is applicable only to cases where the change of the owner does not necessarily change.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da56822 delivered on April 10, 1998, etc.). However, in a case where an inheritor acquires possessory right by inheritance, the inheritor may not assert the possession of the inheritee regardless of his/her own possession, unless he/she initiates his/her own possession by a new title.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 92Da22602, 22619 Decided September 22, 1992; 2007Da61410, 207Da61427 Decided December 13, 2007, etc.). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following.