(a) Whether the right to claim for registration of transfer of ownership ceases to exist if the possessor loses possession after the expiration of the period for acquisition by prescription;

(b) The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the possessor renounced the exercise of the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to completion of prescription if he transferred the right to purchase and sell other land to the occupation of the disputed land at an opportunity to sell other land without gathering the fact of possession of the disputed land or the existence of the land after the expiration of the period of acquisition by prescription;

A. Even if the possessor lost possession after the expiration of the period of prescriptive acquisition, the right to claim the transfer of ownership is not extinguished due to the completion of the period of prescriptive acquisition unless the loss of possession is deemed to have waived the prescriptive benefit.

B. The case holding that the possessor cannot be deemed to have waived the exercise of the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the completion of prescription if he transferred to the occupation of the disputed land the opportunity to sell other land by taking advantage of the fact that the possessor occupies the disputed land or the existence of the land after the completion of the prescription period.

Article 245 of the Civil Act, Article 184 of the Civil Act, Article 192 of the Civil Act

Masung Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na46023 delivered on March 4, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The lower court, based on its evidence, abandoned the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer registration of the land at the time of 19th century (570 square meters omitted), but only 450 square meters were registered at the time of registration conversion, and the registration was omitted following the process of subdivision. However, the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government discovered the omission of the land in the process of surveying for dividing the land in the urban planning line, and entered the land in the land cadastre on November 25, 1987. Since the date of December 30, 1959, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer registration of the land on the same 30,000 square meters (570 square meters) before the expiration of the prescription period, and recognized that the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer registration of the land was no longer than the expiration of the prescription period after the expiration of the prescription period from the expiration of the prescription period to the Plaintiff’s possession of the land on the same 30,000 square meters of the land.

Even if the possessor loses possession after the expiration of the period of prescriptive acquisition, unless the loss of possession is recognized to have waived the prescriptive benefit, the right to claim the transfer of ownership already acquired due to the completion of the period of prescriptive acquisition shall not be extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu3618, Apr. 25, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 90Meu25352, Nov. 13, 1990); and the decision of the court below on this point is justifiable.

However, according to the records, as recognized by the court below, the land of this case was part of the 19th ○○○○dong (former name omitted) in the previous Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was registered on the land cadastre on January 11, 1924 only the remainder except the part of the land of this case at the time of the registration conversion of the above land, and omitted thereafter, and was included in the cadastral record. The land of this case was included in approximately 34,00 square meters in the factory site of the non-party 1, 1984, while the plaintiff occupied and occupied the above factory site at auction and delivery, sold the above factory site to the non-party Masung Construction Co., Ltd. on November 8, 1984, and delivered the above factory site on September 9, 1986, and thereafter the land site was examined as part of ○○○ Dong urban renewal around November 25, 1987.

According to these facts, in selling and delivering the land of this case which the plaintiff used as a factory site to the non-party friendly Construction Co., Ltd., the plaintiff or the non-party company appears to have been aware of the existence of the land of this case as well as the fact that the plaintiff or the non-party company occupied the land of this case. Therefore, it cannot be seen that the land of this case was included in the sale contract between the plaintiff and the non-party company. However, it can be seen that the possession of the land of this case was transferred to the non-party company by including it in the opportunity to deliver it to the above non-party

Therefore, under such circumstances, even though the Plaintiff lost possession of the instant land, it is not recognized that the Plaintiff renounced the exercise of the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the prescriptive acquisition period, namely, the prescriptive acquisition period.

The judgment of the court below held that since the plaintiff transferred the possession of the land in this case to the non-party friendly Construction Co., Ltd. after the completion of the prescription period, the loss of possession and the waiver of the enjoyment of prescription benefits, the plaintiff who lost possession of the land in this case cannot assert the completion of the prescription period due to the extinguishment of the right to claim ownership transfer registration. This wife is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the completion of prescription period, i.e., the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the expiration of prescription period, in violation of the rules of evidence, or the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the expiration of prescription period. The judgment of the court below