민사요건사실과 부동산점유취득시효에 있어서 자주점유

As the means of the legally required fact is a kind of trial norms corresponding to the concrete fact in civil law, some problems may happen when a legal requirement by law that makes legal effect and a ultimate fact that hampers or extinguishes someone's rights are not realistic and concrete but consists of evaluative and normative concept. So, if a civil trial is in the progress based on a normative concept such as "bonnes moeurs(good morals)" or "negligence" without considering the parties' claims about the facts or contents which may affect the judgement, there are some difficulties to determine specific subject for the burden of proof. Furthermore, if a normative evaluation itself becomes the legally required fact, that trial would be led to unexpectedly unfair results because the parties may not specify the target for debate or prove. Therefore, in the real civil suit, it needs to confirm what the legally required fact as taking effect of one's right is, and how the burden of proof should be divided for solving the given conflict under the offense/defense structure in the civil suit. This paper analyses the relationship between the legally required fact and ultimate fact at first, examines whether will of ownership can be accepted as a legally required fact in the matter of the acquisitive prescription of real property possession. And then, it grasps what the ultimate fact in the right of heteronomous possession and the situation of heteronomy possession, and figures out which types can be corresponded with the category.