(a) A case where possession is recognized frequently with respect to the land omitted for distribution;

(b) The case holding that an expression of intent to purchase after the completion of prescription cannot be deemed as waiver of prescription interest; and

1. Since the intention of ownership, which is the requirement for acquisition by prescription, is satisfied if it can be presumed that the farmer has the intention of ownership by nature of the source of possessory right, the farmer's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor's possessor'

2. Even if the possessor displayed an intention of purchase after the expiration of the prescription period, if it cannot be deemed that there was an active declaration of intention, it can be deemed that the possessor renounced the suspension of the acquisition by approval or the benefit of prescriptive acquisition.

Articles 245(1), 247(2), 177, and 184 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1551, 1552 Decided December 21, 1965

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Na-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Jeonju District Court Decision 78Na155 delivered on November 23, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff) and Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below determined that the plaintiff (a counter-defendant 1) acquired the above 2,405 square meters of land from 10 to 30 square meters prior to 916 square meters prior to the subdivision ( Address 1 omitted), 57 square meters prior to 320 square meters prior to the subdivision of the defendant, ( Address 4 omitted), 8 square meters prior to 140 square meters prior to the subdivision of the judgment below, and (b) 15 square meters prior to the subdivision of the above 2,405 square meters prior to the subdivision ( Address 1 omitted), and that the plaintiff acquired the above 2,405 square meters prior to the subdivision of the above 2,400 square meters prior to the subdivision of the farmland, and that the above 2,405 square meters prior to the completion of the farmland distribution method, were without any error of the ownership of the land prior to the subdivision of the above 162).

The issue is merely to criticize evidence preparation and fact-finding belonging to the court below's official authority.

2. The intention of possession, which is the element of prescriptive acquisition, is sufficient to presume that the owner has the intent to own the land by nature of the source of possessory right. However, if the farmer has cultivated all the land owned, it cannot be expected that the land cultivated under the Farmland Reform Act would be omitted because it would be distributed to the farmer, barring special circumstances, and even if a part of the land was distributed only on the document by mistake, barring special circumstances, the farmer or the farmer believed that all the land was distributed to the cultivator, barring special circumstances. Therefore, if the repayment of part of the farmland is completed, the farmer knows that the remaining land belongs to himself/herself, and it would be natural that he/she owns the prop farmer, and it would be known that it would be owned by him/her, and if considered in consideration of the above values, the decision of the court below to the effect that it constitutes a case presumed the Plaintiff's intent to own the source of possessory right in this case, and therefore, it does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prescriptive acquisition of land by prescription or as part of the requirements for the defendant's acquisition.

3. The court below rejected the defendant's defense against the interruption of the prescription period as the ground for interruption after the completion of the prescription period, since the defendant's defense against the interruption of the prescription period should be asserted as the ground for interruption of the prescription period, and thus, the court below rejected the defendant's defense against the defendant's above assertion that there was an error of omission of judgment as to the defense against the waiver of the prescription interest. Thus, even if the plaintiff expressed his intention to purchase after the expiration of the prescription period as mentioned above, it cannot be viewed that there was an active expression of the plaintiff's intention otherwise in this case, and it cannot be said that there was an omission of the plaintiff's intention to purchase or a waiver of the profit upon the expiration of the ownership period (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da151, 1552, Dec. 21, 65).

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, all appeals are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. The 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 Han-jin (Presiding Justice)