The case holding that the possession is the possession of a third party where the Gun gives reply to the land owner who requests the payment of compensation in the manner of the finance, because it has many difficulties in paying compensation at present" without the consent of the land owner.

The Gun requests the payment of compensation to the land owner who occupies the land without the consent of the land owner. "At present, it is difficult for the Gun to pay compensation in accordance with the financial situation."

The case holding that the possession is deemed to be the possession of a third party.

Articles 197(1) and 245 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-

Plaintiff

Attorney Choi Pung-gun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 93Na8083, 93Na8090 decided Oct. 22, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

As to the Grounds of Appeal

The court below found that the defendant Gun did not obtain the consent of the deceased non-party 1 at the time of opening a road on the land of this case, and thereafter, that the above non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2, and the plaintiff, who was their grandchildren, demanded several appropriate compensation against the defendant Gun, but did not make compensation so far, it is reasonable to view that the possession of the defendant Gun on the land of this case is the possession of the owner at the beginning of the Si. In light of the evidence No. 5 adopted by the court below, the defendant Gun responded to the plaintiff who requested the payment of compensation on July 23, 192 that "the cost of the compensation for the land of this case is so heavy that it is difficult for the defendant Gun to pay compensation under the financial situation of the Si at present." Thus, the court below's findings of fact and determination are just and acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da17825, Aug. 27, 191; Supreme Court Decision 2004Da4298484.298.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)