(a) Whether registration as an element for the acquisition by prescription of registry requires a valid registration; and

(b) The case holding that if two persons jointly purchase one parcel of land and register it under a joint name and thereafter occupy it by the method of management of jointly-owned property, the whole parcel of land shall be deemed to have been acquired by prescription;

(a) The requirements for the acquisition by prescription of the registry, which is registered as an owner, need not be a person who has completed a lawful and effective registration;

B. The case holding that if two persons jointly purchase one parcel of land and register it as a joint name and thereafter occupy the possession by the method of management of the jointly-owned property, the whole parcel of land shall be deemed to have been acquired by prescription.

Article 245(2) of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1810 decided Apr. 12, 1988 (Gong1988,835) (Gong1994Sang, 1003) 93Da2367 decided Feb. 8, 1994

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Attorneys Lee Jong-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendant 6 and one other, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Daegu District Court Decision 92Na10058 delivered on February 17, 1993

The part of the judgment below against the defendant 6 and 7 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that even if non-party 1 had been registered for ownership transfer on the above land under the name of the deceased non-party 1, the non-party 2 omitted from the original address of the deceased non-party 1, and the non-party 2 omitted the registration of ownership transfer on the non-party 1's own land and the non-party 2 omitted from the original address of the non-party 1, the non-party 2 omitted the registration of ownership transfer transfer on the non-party 3's own land (the non-party 1, the non-party 2 omitted from the original address of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the non-party 2 omitted the registration of ownership transfer transfer on the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 omitted from the original address of the non-party 1, the non-party 2 were divided into the non-party 7's own land and the non-party 3, the non-party 2 omitted.

In comparison with the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, nor any error of incomplete deliberation.

Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants cannot be deemed to be a registration of the land without permission where the registration of ownership transfer does not exist, and the person who is registered as the owner as the requirements for the prescription for the acquisition of the registry does not need to be a person who completed a lawful and effective registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1810, Apr. 12, 1988). Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the registration in the name of the Defendants

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 6 and Defendant 7 by the attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, based on the above facts of recognition, the court below determined that Defendant 7 acquired the prescription by prescription only for one half of the total area of 3,200 square meters and 265 square meters among the total area of 2,00 square meters as stated in the attached Table 1 as stated in the judgment below, on the ground that the person who occupied only the specific portion of the real estate as stated in Defendant 6 and Defendant 7, registered as the co-owned share holder corresponding to the entire area of the possession portion, and the person who registered as the owner of the real estate under Article 245(2) of the Civil Act only within the scope of co-owned shares as to the specific portion, and that the acquisition by prescription for acquisition of the registry was met only for this portion.

However, it is difficult to view that there is a mutual title trust relationship between the above owners and the above portion of the registered ownership transfer as an area corresponding to the actual purchase of the entire area of one parcel (e.g., 500 square meters among the land with one parcel and purchase of the remainder of 700 square meters, the registration shares of Gap shall be 50/1200, and the registration shares of Eul shall be indicated as 70/1200). In this case, according to the records, the above Defendants were separate from the above (i.e., (ii) and the above portion of the registered land, and (iii) it is difficult to view that there is an agreement between the above Defendants as an owner of the above land and the above portion of the registered land, and (iv) the above portion of the registered land shall be deemed to have been jointly owned with the above portion of the registered land, and (iv) the above portion of the registered land shall be deemed to have been jointly owned with the above portion of the registered land, and (vi) the above portion shall be deemed to have been owned with the above portion of the registered land.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendants 6 and 7 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)