(a) In the case of the acquisition by prescription of the registry, the subject matter of the fruits without fault and the burden of proving such negligence; or in the case where the party claiming the acquisition by prescription of the registry acquired the possessory right by succession in succession, whether it is necessary to prove that there was no negligence at the time the first predecessor

(c) The case holding that it is difficult to view that there was no negligence in the commencement of possession solely on the ground that the father believed that he purchased the land from the well-known person by hearing the words that he purchased the land from the well-known person and possessed it with the inherited property coming from the counter-party.

A. As for the acquisition by prescription of the registry, the negligence of the good faith is not about the registration, but about the acquisition by possession, and the burden of proof on the negligence is against the person who asserts the acquisition by prescription.

B. If possessory right is acquired through inheritance, the inheritor cannot claim the possession of his own land regardless of the possession of the inheritee unless he commences his own possession by new title. Thus, if the party asserting the acquisition by prescription of the registry acquires by inheritance the possessory right to his own land due to the death of his father, and his father also acquires by inheritance the possessory right to his land due to the death of the protocol, barring special circumstances, the party or his father cannot be deemed to have commenced possession by new title. Accordingly, the party should prove that his father was not negligent at the time of the commencement of possession of the land.

C. The case holding that it is difficult to view that it was proven that there was no negligence in the commencement of possession, which is the requirement for the acquisition by prescription of the registry, on the sole basis of the fact that the party claiming the acquisition by prescription of the registry, was negligent in the commencement of possession, on the ground that he/she had heard from his/her father the statement that he/she purchased the land under Paragraph B from his/her nominal titleholder during the Japanese colonial period

Article 245(2) A. B. Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act. Articles 193 and 199 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da27082 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 101) 91Da46779 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1711) 92Da30245 delivered on November 13, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 108), Supreme Court Decision 92Da2602,22619 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 2979) 93Da10989 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2764) 94Da1984 delivered on September 12, 1995 (Gong194, 1985)

Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Han-chul et al. and two others

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na20879 delivered on April 1, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the registration of preservation of ownership of this case in the name of the defendant was made based on a false guarantee that the defendant purchased from the non-party 1, who is the name of the situation of the above land already deceased at the time of the registration, and it was made based on a confirmation document based thereon, and barring special circumstances, and that the above registration conforms to the substantive legal relationship by prescription acquisition, the court below determined that the non-party 2, who is the defendant, was occupying the land of this case in a peaceful and public performance of the Japanese colonial period from the time of Japanese colonial period to the time of June 25 and died in the Korean War, and that the non-party 3, who is his own child, succeeded to the possession of the land of this case and cultivated it again after the lapse of 7 years since the above non-party 3 died on October 14, 1973, and that the registration of preservation of ownership was completed by the non-party 1, who was the above non-party 3's possession of the above land from the above 9-party 1.

However, in the case of the acquisition by prescription, the act of acquiring by prescription does not relate to the registration, but to the acquisition by possession (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da46779 delivered on April 28, 192). The burden of proof as to the acquisition by prescription lies on the person who asserts the acquisition by prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da30245 delivered on November 13, 1992). If the right of possession by inheritance was acquired by inheritance, the inheritor cannot assert his own possession without his own possession, unless he begins his own possession by new title (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da10989 delivered on September 14, 1993). The court below rejected the defendant's claim for the above acquisition by prescription from the non-party 3's death, which is the above non-party 1's right of possession by the non-party 2, which is the mere fact that the defendant had obtained by the non-party 3's own possession of the above land, and it is difficult to prove that the defendant had obtained by the above non-party 2's right of possession.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)