Whether possession has been presumed frequently, in case where possession has commenced for the management of another person's goods (negative)

In the case of the acquisition by prescription, the intention of possession, which is the requirement for the possession with intention of possession, must be determined by the nature of the source of possessory right which objectively causes the acquisition by possession. If the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied as the intention of possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, but if it is recognized that the possessor commenced the possession to manage another person's goods by proving that the possessor is the owner, it shall be deemed that

Articles 197 and 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1969 delivered on October 27, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 83Meu2406 delivered on March 27, 1984

Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Jeonju District Court Decision 87Na196 delivered on March 31, 198

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the case of the acquisition by prescription, the intention of possession, which is the requirement for the possession with intention of possession, must be determined by the nature of the source of possessory right which objectively causes the acquisition by possession. If the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have possession with the intention of possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, but if it is acknowledged that the possessor commenced the possession in order to manage the goods of another by proving that the possessor is the possession with the intention of possession, such possession shall be deemed to have been the possession with the nature of the source of possessory right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Meu2406, Mar. 27, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 80Da

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above real estate was originally unregistered and purchased on December 27, 1921 by four persons, including the deceased non-party 2, non-party 3, and non-party 4, etc., including the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, who died on April 3, 1943 and became his deceased non-party 5, and the deceased non-party 1 became his head of family and became his heir of property, and the deceased non-party 1 became one of his co-inheritors's co-inheritors, and the defendant did not purchase this real estate from 4, such as the above non-party 1, etc., and found the above real estate under the name of the above non-party 1, the defendant's non-party 1, who was found to possess each of the above real estate under the name of the above non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 1, who acquired each of the above real estate under the name of the above non-party 1, and non-party 18, respectively.

However, in addition to the fact that the testimony of the court of first instance or the non-party 6, the non-party 7, the non-party 8, and the non-party 10 who was employed by the court below was all aware that the defendant possessed the real estate of this case for 40 years, or that the non-party 11 purchased the right from the defendant or his husband from the defendant or the Dong Ne, there is no part that can directly find the facts about the defendant's source of right. However, since the non-party 12's testimony was not rejected by the court below prior to June 25, the court below rejected the above non-party 1's assertion that the non-party 9's testimony and the testimony were non-party 13's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's testimony.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won