Where there is a change in the owner of real estate during the period of possession, the time when the claimant for the prescriptive acquisition starts the possession held.

If there is a change in the owner of the relevant real estate during the period of possession, the claimant for the prescriptive acquisition cannot assert the completion of prescription on the ground that he/she arbitrarily selected the starting point of counting or occupied for not less than 20 years retroactively, and in such a case, the court shall recognize the starting point of real possession as recognized by the litigation data and determine the propriety of the claim for the prescriptive acquisition based on this, without seeking the parties

Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Dong-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Attorney Cho Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 92Na1210,92Na1227 delivered on December 30, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even if the period of prescriptive acquisition of real estate ownership expires, if the real estate is not registered but registered, it cannot be claimed against a third party who acquired the real estate. Thus, if the owner of the real estate changes during the period of possession, the claimant for the prescriptive acquisition cannot assert the completion of prescription on the ground that he/she arbitrarily selected the starting point of reckoning or occupied it for not less than 20 years retroactively, and in such a case, the court shall recognize the starting point of real possession as recognized by the litigation data and determine the propriety of the claim for prescriptive acquisition based on the same. (See Supreme Court Decision 82Da565 delivered on November 9, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 92Da29740 delivered on November 10, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 8Da3618 delivered on April 25, 1989.)

In the same purport, the court below was justified in holding that, inasmuch as the plaintiff asserts not only the possession of the deceased non-party, who is the former occupant, the starting point for the prescriptive acquisition of the site of this case is 1952 years from the commencement of possession of the site

The issue is that, on April 20, 1971, the deceased non-party, purchased a lot of 20 square meters adjacent to the site of this case on the Dong Sea, which is the land adjacent to the site of this case, and misunderstood that the purchase site of this case was included in the land of this case. Thus, the possession from 1952 to April 20, 1971 for the first possession of the site of this case should be deemed to be the possession of the owner. However, even if the non-party, who purchased the site of this case as alleged above, mispercing as alleged above, he could not be readily concluded that the previous possession of the site of this case is the possession of the owner. Thus, the judgment of the court below which presumed that the non-party was the possession of the site of this case for the first time from

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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 Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)