2015Da212114 Registration of transfer of ownership

A

Korea Rural Community Corporation

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Na32936 Decided March 26, 2015

August 19, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where an owner of a certain piece of land has occupied the land by himself/herself and continues to occupy the land by selling the whole or part of such land to another person, etc. while he/she has occupied the land, possession of the part of which ownership has been transferred to another person shall newly meet the legal act capable of causing the acquisition of the ownership in such part, and other

Unless there are special circumstances, possession shall be deemed to constitute possession of another owner by nature (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da1555, Mar. 30, 2007). In addition, where an inheritor acquires possessory right by inheritance, he/she cannot assert only his/her own possession regardless of the possession of the inheritee unless he/she starts his/her own possession by a new title. In cases where the possession of the representative is the possession of the ship, the possession of the person who succeeds to the possession by inheritance from the ship does not vary in nature or form, and barring special circumstances, such possession cannot be deemed as an independent possession, barring special circumstances. In order to hold the possession independently, the possessor must express his/her intention as to the owner or start possession with the new title (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da27273, Sept. 24, 2004).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that ① the Plaintiff’s attached 6th day of Sep. 21, 1972 purchased 1 4th day (10,296m, hereinafter referred to as “land purchase”). ② Part of the purchased forest was assigned to the Korea Agricultural Promotion Corporation, conducted by the Defendant’s telegraph around 1973, and the Korea Agricultural Promotion Corporation paid the purchase price to C through consultation with C around 29, around 1973; ③ the purchase site of this case was purchased 6th day of Jun. 1, 1974 (9,521m, hereinafter referred to as “the land of this case”) and the land of this case was divided into 9th day of Jun. 1, 197, 196, 197, 196th day of Jun. 1, 196, 200, 30th day of the farmland and 5th day of the forest land boundary of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the forest land”).

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the possession of the instant forest at the time of transfer of ownership in the name of the Agricultural Promotion Corporation after the said I forest and the instant forest were purchased by consultation with the Agricultural Promotion Corporation, or the Plaintiff’s possession by succession thereto, shall be deemed to fall under the possession of the owner of the forest by nature, barring any special circumstances.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the deceased C or the plaintiff's possession of the forest of this case or the plaintiff's possession of the forest of this case is another owner's possession on May 31, 2009, since from May 1, 1989, the deceased C had constructed the farm of this case on its ground with the permission to damage the forest of this case with the permission to damage the forest of this case and constructed the farm of this case on its ground along with the fence of the farm, separated from neighboring land, and succeeded to the above possession of the forest of this case from May 1, 1989, which was separated from the adjacent land of this case. The plaintiff succeeded to the possession of the forest of this case, and his possession was presumed to have been carried out in peace and public performance based on his own intent, since the acquisition by prescription of possession of the forest of this case was completed on May 31, 2009.

However, as seen earlier, the forest land of this case is purchased by consultation with the Agricultural Promotion Corporation.

Possession of the forest land of this case in the deceased C after the registration of transfer of ownership in the name has been completed;

Even if the forest land of this case, including the adjacent forest land of this case, began to be occupied as a farm with the permission for destroying the forest land of this case with respect to other surrounding land, which is not the forest land of this case, the judgment of the court below was completed on May 31, 2009, which concluded that the possession of the forest of this case by the plaintiff was the possession of the forest of this case by intention C or the plaintiff as the owner of the forest of this case, even though it cannot be deemed that the new legal act or other legal requirements were met for acquiring the ownership of the forest of this case. Thus, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the nature of the possession, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The presiding judge shall keep the record of the Justice

Justices Min Il-young

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han