[1] The requirements for the conversion of the possession into the possession with intention

[2] In case where a transfer registration is completed with a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit against a deceased person claiming the transfer of ownership, whether the possession of another owner is converted into possession independently

[1] Where the possessor has occupied the land for the original owner, it shall be deemed as the owner in its nature. For the conversion of the possession into the possession with the intention of the possessor, the possessor shall either indicate the intention of the possession to the person who has occupied, or commence the possession with the intention of the possession again by the new title.

[2] Since the possessor filed a lawsuit seeking the registration of ownership transfer against the deceased owner and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the final and conclusive judgment in favor of him, it cannot be deemed that the possessor expressed his intention to possess or that he commenced possession with a new title.

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Da37871 (Gong1993Ha, 2282) delivered on July 16, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 92Da47526 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 97) (Gong195Sang, 1464) Decided February 28, 1995

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Seoll-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 94Na3507 delivered on April 12, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed on the land of this case by filing a lawsuit against the deceased non-party 1 for the registration of transfer of ownership against the deceased non-party 1, and completed the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant, it is recognized that the cause is invalid, and that the non-party 2 was donated to the defendant by purchasing and cultivating the land of this case around April 1950, and even if not, since the defendant acquired the right to claim the transfer of ownership due to the completion of prescription after the lapse of 20 years from April 1950 when possession was commenced, it is difficult to believe that the above registration conforms to the facts of purchase or donation by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, while according to the evidence of the judgment, the land of this case was purchased in the future by the above non-party 1, who was employed as a public official in Japan, and was frequently in possession of the land of this case for the purpose of the above non-party 1, which was located in the above farmland.

However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, since the defendant originally occupied the land of this case for the non-party 1, it shall be deemed to be the possession by nature, and if the possession by the non-party 1 is to be converted into the possession by the non-party 1, the possessor has the intention to own it or shall commence the possession with the intention to own it again with the new title. Thus, the judgment of the court below shall not be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on conversion of the possession by the non-party 1, since the possessor has already obtained a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the deceased owner by filing a lawsuit seeking the registration of ownership transfer against the deceased owner, and the possessor has completed the registration of ownership transfer based thereon, and it shall not be deemed to have expressed his intention to own or commenced the possession with the new title (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Da95, Apr. 11, 1989; 94Da48165, Feb. 28, 1995).

However, examining the evidence in the records of this case, unlike the recognition of the court below, since the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance that the above non-party 2, who is the defendant's fleet, purchased the land of this case from the above non-party 1, his mother, and recognized the fact that he donated to the defendant who is his mother, it is no longer acceptable to accept the defense that it conforms to the defendant's substantive relationship, and therefore, the judgment of the court below's error is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and there is no reason to

In addition, the plaintiff argues that there is an error in violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, and inconsistency with the records of this case, but the remaining facts and judgments of the court below are acceptable as legitimate measures, and there is no reason to challenge them.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)