The precedent that held that the buyer of a null and void sales contract had the intention to hold the land so purchased as a requirement for the completion of acquisition by prescription.

Even if the purchaser of an invalid sales contract, it can be seen that he had the intention to own the purchased land, which is the requirement for the completion of acquisition by prescription.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jae-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Cho Dong-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na2991 delivered on September 26, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the first ground for appeal, the lower court determined to the following purport.

In other words, it is recognized that the defendant purchased the above land from the non-party 2 who was managing the land upon delegation of the management of the above land from the non-party 1 to October 194, and received the transfer of the above land from the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 until now since 1945. Thus, the defendant decided that the above land is "the non-party 2 was merely a mere manager who has no authority to dispose of the above land, and therefore, the contract that the defendant purchased from the non-party 2 can be deemed null and void as a sale contract." The purport of the above decision of the court below is that the non-party 2 was merely a mere manager who has no authority to dispose of the above land, and therefore, it can be deemed that the contract that the defendant purchased the above land under the premise that it is null and void.

Even if the purchaser of an invalid sales contract, he/she can be seen as holding the purchased land as a requisite for the completion of acquisition by prescription.

The lower court’s determination to the same purport is justifiable. If Nonparty 2 had the authority to dispose of the above land as the claimant’s assertion, Nonparty 2 acted as the representative of the plaintiff’s fleet, and thus, the defendant directly purchased the land from the plaintiff’s fleet, and there is no room for involvement in the legal relationship for the acquisition of prescription. In this sense, even if Nonparty 2 did not examine and determine whether the lower court was authorized to dispose of this land, it cannot be said that this constitutes an unlawful cause for lack of sufficient deliberation or lack of reasoning that affect the lower judgment.

(2) As to the second ground of appeal, the lower court recognized the following facts. In other words, the Defendant purchased the land at issue in this case from Nonparty 2 in October, 194, and obtained the delivery of the land, and occupied it in peace and openly by occupying it up to the present time. Examining the process of evidence collection premised on the premise of this fact-finding, the lower court is justifiable, and there is no illegality in violation of logical and empirical rules as it did so, and there is no ground for finding facts contrary to the reasoning. It is nothing more than criticism and attack against the process of fact-finding in the lower court, while failing to present a reasonable ground for each argument. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The grounds for appeal submitted by the plaintiff's agent as of December 18, 1968 are that the supplementary documents submitted by the plaintiff's agent as of December 18, 1968 are submitted in the last and last

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet