A. Whether the title truster has possession of the real estate held by the title truster, if the title truster sells it to another and the registration of ownership transfer is completed

(b) the burden of proving that the possession has been converted into the possession of the other;

A. In a case where the title trustee sold the real estate to another and completed the registration of ownership transfer while the owner of the real estate was holding the title trust on the other hand, but the title truster continues to possess the real estate as in the previous case, the possession of the title truster cannot be deemed to be changed to the possession of another real estate due to the transfer of ownership due to the sale of the title trustee, unless the sale of the real estate by the title trustee was conducted based on the intention of the

B. The possessor's possession is presumed to be an independent possession, and the possessor does not have the responsibility to prove that the possessor is an independent possession according to the nature of the possessor's possessor, and there is the burden of proving the possessor's possession to the person who asserts that the possessor is an independent possession. Therefore, the possessor bears the burden of proving the fact that the possession has been converted from an independent possession to another possession

Articles 197 and 245 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff Cheongyang Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Dong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant from among the Andong Kim Dong-dong ○○ ○○

Cheongju District Court Decision 86Na110 delivered on June 19, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, after compiling the evidences of the city, recognized the fact that the real estate of this case was originally owned by the defendant's species and owned by the deceased non-party 2 and non-party 3 as the owner of the defendant's species from February 26, 1924 to May 198, and continuously occupied the real estate from the deceased non-party 1 to the deceased non-party 2 and non-party 3, together with other real estate owned by the clans, that the deceased non-party 2 and non-party 3 have agreed to newly construct the house on the ground of this case and use it as the site every year from 1947, and that the non-party 4 had the non-party 4 newly built the house on the ground of this case and agreed to use it as the site each year from that time until 1972, and that the two parts were paid in each fee each year from that time until 1924 to 1985. In light of the records, the above fact finding of this case is justified and there is no error of mistake.

The issue is that the fact-finding of the court below was erroneous on the premise that receiving the help from the deceased non-party 2 and the non-party 3 was not the defendant defendant but the deceased non-party 5. However, this is nothing more than that of attacking the judgment of the court below on the ground of the facts duly admitted by the court below.

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

In general, even after the owner of a real estate sells such real estate to another person and continues to possess such real estate as before, barring special circumstances, it would be reasonable to deem that such possession is the possession for the purchaser from the time when the purchaser completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future, barring any special circumstances. However, in this case, if the title trustee sold such real estate to another person and completed the registration of ownership transfer while the title trustee was holding the title trust in another person, he/she sold such real estate to another person and completed the registration of ownership transfer, but if the title truster continues to possess such real estate as before, the title truster's possession cannot be deemed to be changed to another owner due to the transfer of ownership due to the sale by the title trustee, unless the sale by the title trustee was conducted

In addition, the possessor's possession is presumed to be an independent possession, and the possessor does not bear the burden of proving that the possessor is an independent possession based on the nature of the possessor's possession, and the possessor bears the burden of proving that the possessor's possession has been converted from an independent possession to another possession as a result of the burden of proving that the possessor's possession has been converted into an independent possession. In such a case, the title truster should not prove that the sale is not based on the intention of the title truster, but should prove that the title truster's possession was made based on the will of the title truster.

Therefore, in the instant case where there is no evidence from the plaintiff's side as to the fact that the transfer registration of ownership was made in the name of the deceased non-party 5 on the ground of sale from the deceased non-party 6 and non-party 5, who is the title trustee of defendant Jong-J, the title trustee of defendant Jong-J on the instant real estate due to the sale from the deceased non-party 6 and the deceased non-party 5 on the ground of the intention of the defendant Lee Jong-J, the court below held that the possession of the instant real estate was owned independently after the above transfer registration is based on the premise of the legal principles stated above,

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)