When the sale of a real estate is invalidated after the commencement of possession, whether the nature of such possession changes into another main possession or not, if the sale of such real estate is invalidated.

Unless there are special circumstances such as the knowledge that the sale of real estate becomes invalid, the person who purchased it shall be deemed to possess it at the beginning of the possession, and even if the sale becomes null and void due to the invalidation of the sale due to the absence of the disposal right to the seller on the day after domestic affairs, the possession was made illegal in relation to the real owner, as a result, on the other hand, due to the purchaser's intention to acquire the ownership, the above possession shall not change.

Article 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da469 Decided June 9, 1981 (Gong1981, 1398) (Gong1981, 1398), 90Meu27280 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 223), 92Da30375 Decided October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3289)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Korea

Busan District Court Decision 94Na269 delivered on April 22, 1994

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

Unless there are special circumstances such as the knowledge that the sale of real estate becomes null and void, the person who purchased it shall be deemed to possess the real estate at the beginning of the possession, and even if the sale was invalidated due to the absence of disposal rights to the seller on the day after home, and the possession was eventually illegal in relation to the real owner, it shall not change the nature of such possession with the purchaser’s intent to acquire the ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da469, Jun. 9, 1981).

In light of the records, even if the court below established evidence and held that the non-party purchased the land in this case from an unentitled person, and the plaintiff occupied the land in this case without knowing that the above contract was null and void, it is presumed that the non-party and the plaintiff succeeded to the possession of the land in this case continues to occupy the land in peace and openly with the intention to own the land in this case. The above contract was concluded between the non-party and the non-party and the non-party, and it was confirmed that the possession was illegal as a result of the fact that the above contract was concluded between the non-party and the non-party and the non-party, even though it was confirmed that the possession was illegal, the above possession did not change in the nature of the possession as the intention to acquire ownership. In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below that the acquisition period was completed on August 1, 197, which was 20 years after the above non-party's commencement of possession, was just, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation.

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 Don-hee (Presiding Justice)