Children of a landowner in Paju, Gyeonggi, were sued by an unrelated person demanding "transfer the ownership because a building was built and occupied for more than 20 years," but a Supreme Court ruling has allowed them to keep their rights.
The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Shin Sook-hee) said on the 29th that on Aug. 8 it overturned the appellate ruling that held land owned by the Yoon family had become the property of Yoo and sent the case back to the Uijeongbu District Court in the final appeals of Yoon's unjust enrichment claim and Yoo's claim for registration of ownership transfer.
Yoon's father purchased 106 square meters of land in Paju, Gyeonggi, in Dec. 1966. When the father died in Feb. 2010, seven people including Yoon inherited one-seventh equity each in this land.
In Sept. 1993, Yoo purchased 76 square meters of land that adjoined land owned by the Yoon family. The same year, a single-story neighborhood living facility building was erected. Although the building ledger and the certified copy of the register recorded the building as having been constructed on Yoo's land, in reality it was built on the Yoon family's land.
The land Yoo had owned was knocked down at auction to Yoon in 1999. Even though Yoo no longer owned any land, the building erected on someone else's land continued to be occupied.
In 2023, Yoon filed an unjust enrichment lawsuit, saying Yoo occupied and used the land without consent, and demanded payment of 29.54 million won, equivalent to 10 years of rent.
The first trial sided with Yoon. Facing the obligation to pay 29.54 million won, Yoo filed an action in the appellate court seeking registration of ownership transfer against Yoon. Yoo argued that "from Dec. 1993, when preservation of ownership registration of the building on the Yoon family's land was completed, I peacefully possessed it with the intention of ownership for 20 years, completing acquisitive prescription," and claimed Yoon must transfer land ownership to Yoo.
Article 245 of the Civil Act provides that "if one possesses real estate peacefully and publicly with the intention of ownership for 20 years, one acquires ownership by registration."
The appellate court ruled that Yoon must hand over the land to Yoo. The appellate panel said, "Yoo's possession of the land is presumed to have been peaceful and public with the intention of ownership," and added, "In Dec. 2013, 20 years after the building registration date, the acquisitive prescription for land possession was completed."
The Supreme Court, however, found this determination wrong and overturned the appellate ruling. First, it said that the fact Yoo's building was constructed from the outset on the Yoon family's land, not Yoo's own, goes beyond an ordinary construction error.
It continued, "Yoo would have known that his building was being constructed encroaching on the adjacent land," adding, "Possession of the adjacent land due to that encroachment cannot be considered possession with the intention of ownership."
The Supreme Court also pointed out that Yoo admitted he became aware in 1999, when his land was sold at auction to Yoon, that the building stood on someone else's land.