자기 소유 부동산의 시효취득 인정여부 -대법원 2016. 10. 27. 선고 2016다224596 판결을 계기로- = A Study on the Admissibility of Acquisitive Prescription of Personal Real Estate Ownership -Korean Supreme Court Decision 2016Da224596 Delivered on October 27, 2016-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

When it comes to the acquisitive prescription, the Korean Civil Code does not require `a person who possesses the property of another person` in contrast to Article 162 of the Japanese Civil Code. If so, can possessor acquire own property by acquisitive prescription? In case of personal real estate ownership it is a common view that the acquisitive prescription is acceptable. The rationale is as follows: First, the reason for the existence of the acquisitive prescription is to promote stability of the social order and to lighten difficulty in the burden of proof. Second, it is a system to raise the status of facts to a right relation without asking who possesses it. Third, acquisitive prescription is original acquisition. At last, the Korean Civil Code does not require `a person who possesses the property of another person`. However, the evidence presented above is logically poor. If he(she) owns such property for sure through valid registration, Korean Supreme Court regards that there is no need to claim acquisitive prescription. While if he(she) owns such property for sure without registration, Korean Supreme Court admit acquisitive prescription of personal real estate ownership to raise the status of facts of possessor to legal relationship. More careful consideration is needed as to whether the position of the dichotomous case will be maintained.