The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error in the misapprehension of judgment as to the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership due to the defendant's possession

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error in the misapprehension of judgment as to the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership due to the defendant's possession

Article 245(1) of the Civil Act; Article 193(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Choi Han-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Shin Young-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 89Na17517 delivered on May 23, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the land of this case was owned by the Dong, which was assessed under the name of Nonparty 1 at the time of the execution of the land survey project, and that the Defendants purchased the land of this case from the above Nonparty on October 15, 1966, and completed the registration of preservation of ownership pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer, etc. on the ground that it was the heir of the above land, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for the registration of cancellation

However, according to the records, the defendants' legal representative in this case purchased the land of this case from the non-party 1 on February 15, 1965 at the fourth date for pleading 4, 1989.10:0, the first time for pleading 10:00, which was the first time for pleading 1965.2.16 of the same year, and has been in possession of the land of this case openly and openly after the payment of the remaining amount. The defendant 1 and 3.16 of the same year after the preservation registration was completed on April 18, 1979. Thus, it is obvious that the acquisition by prescription was completed on March 16, 1985 (see the preparatory brief dated September 21, 1989). Thus, the court below did not make any decision on the above assertion of the defendants, and therefore there is an unlawful error of law as pointing this out.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)