Claims as to the prescription period for the acquisition of immovables and the exercise of the right to know

Since the defendant asserts that he acquired ownership through the completion of the prescriptive acquisition as he possessed the real estate, and that he currently occupied the real estate by the defendant, the court below should request the defendant's name as to the title at the time when he occupied the real estate and urge him to prove it.

Article 162 of the Civil Act, Article 127 of the Civil Procedure Act

Hackology

Hawsk

Seoul High Court Decision 57 civil defense 429 decided September 24, 1958

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below asserted that the defendant acquired the ownership of another person's real property by the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, since he occupied it in a peaceful and simple manner with his intention to own the real property, but it is necessary to possess it for 10 years or 20 years as to the acquisition of the ownership of another person's real property by the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant occupied the real property over such a period, but the defendant still occupied the real property, because he is the person in the plaintiff, the court below's order of the defendant as to the title at the time of possession of the real property at the time of the defendant's possession of the real property at the time of 20 years as provided in Article 162 (1) of the Civil Code, or if it claimed the completion of the prescriptive acquisition due to possession for 10 years as provided in Article 162 (2) of the Civil Code, the court below's decision does not seem to be able to escape criticism of the right

Justices Go Jae-ho (Presiding Justice) Mah-ho (Presiding Justice)