A. The meaning of the peaceful possession under Article 245 of the Civil Act and whether the peaceful performance of possession is lost solely on the ground that there was an objection from the person claiming that the possession is illegal, or there was a legal dispute over the ownership of the object of possession (negative)

B. Whether extinctive prescription is interrupted in a case where a retrial is requested after a judgment dismissing a claim becomes final and conclusive (negative)

A. Stable occupancy as stipulated in Article 245 of the Civil Act refers to a possession that is not a legally acceptable act in acquiring or holding such possession, and public performance refers to a possession that is not a possession. Thus, even if such possession has received an objection from a person who asserts that it is illegal or there was a legal dispute between the parties on the ownership of the object, such fact alone cannot be said to lose the peace and public performance of such possession.

B. In the case of dismissal, dismissal, or withdrawal of a lawsuit, the interruption of prescription does not have the effect of interruption in the case of dismissal, dismissal, or withdrawal of a lawsuit: Provided, however, if a judicial claim is again filed within six months, the interruption of prescription shall be interrupted, but in the case where a dismissal judgment becomes final and conclusive, the interruption of prescription cannot take effect due to the absence of the claim. Therefore, the running

A. Articles 245 and 197(1) of the Civil Act; Article 170 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 81Da2238 delivered on January 27, 1981 (Gong1982, 1005 delivered on September 28, 1982) 75Da1084 delivered on December 9, 1975

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Seo-gil, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 91Na9020 delivered on January 17, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the deceased non-party 1 purchased the land of this case from the deceased non-party 2 who originally owned it on March 20, 1951, again purchased from the deceased non-party 3 who was the owner of this case, and occupied it from that time, and died on July 30, 198. From that time, the defendant, who was the heir of this case, succeeded to the possession of this case until now, and it is presumed that the deceased non-party 1 was possession of the land of this case in peace and openly and openly as the owner's intention after its commencement. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case on May 20, 1971, which was 20 years after its commencement, and the effect of prescription acquisition extends to the defendant, who was the successor of this non-party 1, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be dismissed as a legal defense or non-existence of the right of public performance.

In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and decision-finding are justified and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the principle of evidence selection, violation of the principle of right to dispose of the parties with reason and reason, violation of the principle of right to dispose of the parties, autonomous possession in the acquisition by prescription, peace in possession, performance, interruption of prescription, etc. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)