(a) Whether or not the purchaser from the title holder on the registry is an possessor without negligence in the acquisition by prescription on the registry; and

(b) Whether it is occupied in bad faith, where the registration of ownership transfer is made with the certification of farmland sale by law in the prescription for the acquisition of the register;

A. In a case where the possessor bears the burden of proving the possessor's negligence as a requirement for the acquisition by prescription, but the possessor and the seller on the registry are the same person, the purchaser of the real estate shall be deemed to be the possessor without negligence, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Even if a person who is not entitled to obtain the certification of the government office where the farmland reform law is located has completed the registration of ownership transfer with the certification of the government office where the location is located by law, such possession cannot be deemed to be a bad faith possession.

A. Article 245(2) of the Civil Act; Article 19(2) of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994)

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2881 delivered on May 11, 1982 (Gong1982,561) 80Da3198 delivered on March 8, 1983 (Gong1983,646) 91Da1172 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong1992,105) 94Da1445,1452 delivered on March 17, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1708), 94Da54016 delivered on August 11, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3122)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 94Na40337 delivered on April 26, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that Non-party 1 purchased the land of this case where non-party 1 had been registered for preservation of ownership by recovery in the name of the above non-party 2 on December 31, 1974 and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and at the same time acquired and cultivated it, and rejected the evidence contrary to its recognition. In light of the records, the evidence cooking and fact finding which the court below passed is just, and it cannot be said that there is any illegality of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the argument.

The Second Ground of Appeal

As a requirement for the acquisition by prescription of the register, the possessor bears the burden of proof against the possessor's negligence, but if the possessor and the seller are the same person on the register, the purchaser of the real estate shall be deemed to be the possessor without negligence unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2881 delivered on May 11, 1982). In the same purport, the court below rejected the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's statement that there were special circumstances to deem that the non-party 1 was negligent in believing the above non-party 2 as the owner at the time of purchase as the owner, and it was just to have determined that the non-party 1 was not negligent in the commencement of the possession of the above non-party 1, and there was no error of law by misconceptioning the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit,

As to the third ground for appeal

The decision of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above non-party 1 had completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future by means of a law even though he was unable to obtain the certificate of farmland trade since he was not residing in the real estate location of this case, the possession cannot be deemed to be a malicious possession, and when examining the record, the decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reversal of the presumption of presumption of the possessor's good faith or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 19 (2) of the Farmland Reform Act, etc., such as the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reversal of the presumption of the possessor's good faith. All arguments are without merit.

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)