Whether it can be viewed as an independent possession in the nature of the source of authority where a person occupies or cultivates land owned by another person without a manager without permission (affirmative with qualification)

Where a person cultivates land owned by another person neglected without a manager without permission, it shall be deemed possession with intention by nature of the title, except in extenuating circumstances.

Articles 197 and 245 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Park Jae-in, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Defendant-Appellee (Attorney Park Young-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 91Na6723 delivered on August 28, 1992

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant as to the land of this case was void due to lack of cause. The judgment of the defendant's claim for acquisition by prescription was made. The defendant cultivated the above land of this case from 1960 to 1960, and the defendant explained that the defendant was presumed to have occupied the above land in peace and openly with the intention to own the land of this case. Furthermore, since the adoption evidence purchased the land of this case from the non-party 2 around 1937 to the non-party 3, the deceased non-party 3 was in charge of its management. Since the above non-party 3 died in around 1960 and neglected the above land without any economic feasibility due to its location in the outer forest, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the change in ownership in the above land of this case and the non-party 3, who was well aware of the above non-party 3, were abandoned from the time to the point of possession without permission, and rejected the defendant's claim for acquisition by prescription against the above non-party 1981.

However, the possession with intention to exercise the same control as the owner refers to the possession with the intention to hold the same control as the owner, and if the defendant has occupied the land owned by another person without the manager without permission as the court below recognizes himself/herself, the possession of the defendant shall be deemed as possession with intention to hold it in the nature of the source of right, unless there are special circumstances.

The judgment of the court below cannot be erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the occupancy pattern, and it returned to the fact that there are reasons for the argument.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.