[1] In a case where the owner of the land purchased the land from the owner and only a part of the purchase price is paid, whether the conclusion of the sale contract can be converted into possession independently only

[2] The nature of the possession by the person succeeding to the possession by inheritance

[1] In a case where a person who occupies a certain piece of land purchases the land from the owner, the remaining purchase price except the down payment shall be paid in installments on four occasions, and the ownership shall not be transferred unless the price is paid in full. Before the ownership is transferred, a sales contract was concluded with the purport that sub-lease, transfer, establishment of mortgage, and establishment of other limited real rights shall not be permitted without the consent of the seller, and the original form or purpose of use of the sale object shall not be changed, and where the remainder of the purchase price, which was to be paid in installments four times for the original form or purpose of use of the sale object, is not paid in part, even if such a sales contract was concluded between the possessor and the owner, it shall not be deemed that the buyer occupied the land which is the object of the sale with the intent to control the land identical with the owner before the price is paid in full

[2] [1] Where the inheritor of the buyer under Paragraph (1) continues his possession due to inheritance, the nature of the inheritor's possession does not change.

[1] Articles 197 and 245(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 197, 199, and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da1838 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2115), Supreme Court Decision 92Da11961 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2262), Supreme Court Decision 94Da17475 delivered on October 21, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3071) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Da550 delivered on February 10, 1987 (1987, 416), Supreme Court Decision 94Da19884 delivered on January 12, 195 (Gong195, 872)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm International Law Office, Attorneys Kim Dai-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Young-gu Busan Metropolitan City (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 95Na78 delivered on June 1, 1995

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the remaining amount of 1,230,000 won of the land of this case to be purchased from the above deceased on January 29, 1963 in the name of 12,00 won since the plaintiff 1 got married to the above non-party 1 (the death of March 11, 1976) and resided in the above 2nd house, which is the real estate belonging to the land of this case, and purchased the land of this case from the above deceased on December 31, 1963, and purchased the land of this case from the above non-party 2 to the above 9th time of 10th time of 7th time of 1962 to the above 19th time of 14th time of 7th time of 196 of 196 of 7th time of 196 of 196 of 14th time of 14th time of 198 of 1968.

2. The possessor is presumed to possess the land as a matter of principle. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, it is clear that the deceased non-party or the plaintiffs occupied the land of this case with the right of annual residence, which is the real estate owned by them. Thus, the presumption of autonomous possession is reversed. Therefore, if the deceased non-party or the plaintiffs' possession of the land is deemed to have been converted into autonomous possession, it should clearly indicate that they have the intention of possession. Such intention is practically intended to exercise the same control as the owner (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da11961, Jun. 23, 1992; 94Da17475, Oct. 21, 1994; 2000Da17475, Oct. 1, 1994). Thus, according to the sale contract (Evidence No.8) of this case's land which is the object owned by them, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiffs were not subject to the sale and purchase agreement or the sale price of the land of this case.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)