beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the plaintiff as to the conjunctive claim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the main claim, the Plaintiff appealed to the main claim of the judgment below, but there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and no statement of the grounds for appeal is found even in the appellate brief.
2. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the prescription period for the acquisition of the land of this case has expired on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff had been continuously occupying the land of this case for 20 years or more in light of the current status of the land of this case, although the court below acknowledged that the land of this case was designated as a clearance zone, the "B" and "C (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case") among the land of this case was designated as a clearance zone, as long as the possessor acquired the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the owner pursuant to Article 245 (1) of the Civil Act, and as long as the possessor acquired the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership as a result of the expiration of the prescription period, even if the possessor lost his possession after the expiration of the prescription period, it cannot be viewed as a waiver of the prescription interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da4745, Mar. 28, 195).
However, according to the records, the photographic image taken on September 2009, along with a road adjacent to the land in the dispute of this case, can be seen that the land in this case was a slope adjacent to the road, which was not filled on the same height as that of the road.
If there are circumstances, the possibility that the plaintiff might have occupied the land in the dispute of this case around January 2009, for which the period of prescription for the acquisition by possession has expired cannot be ruled out.
Nevertheless, the lower court did not examine and determine whether the Plaintiff occupied the land in the instant dispute during the period from January 23, 1989 to January 23, 2009, and only did it examine and determine whether the Plaintiff occupied the land in the instant dispute.