부동산 취득시효 관련 판례 5원칙에 관한 연구

The primary purposes of this study were to; 1) examine the ‘5 principles’which the Korean Supreme Court has adhered to apply regarding anacquisitive prescription of real estates; 2) review the Korean principle theoriesrespecting the ‘5 principles’; 3) compare the Korean ‘5 principles’ with theJapanese ‘5 principles’; and 4) review the application scope of the JapaneseCivil Act article 177. Major findings are as follows: First, the ‘5 principles’ simply followed theJapanese ‘5 principles’ which were devised to clarify the application scopeof the Japanese Civil Act article 177. Second, the Korean major theorieswere captivated by the false proposition the Korean Supreme Court provided:An acquisitive prescription claimant should need the 3rd principles sincea claim for registration is defined as contractual rights according to the KoreanCivil Act article 245(1). Third, the Korean legal scholars failed to appreciatethat Korean precedents and theories have to be different from the Japanesein dealing with the issues of acquisitive prescription because the Koreancodes were enacted differently from the Japanese codes. The findings suggest that the existing principle theories failed to solvethe issues regarding the Korean acquisitive prescription. Accordingly, theresearcher concluded this study by proposing the theory of analysing the Korean Civil codes of acquisitive prescription, in particular, the Korean Civil Act article 245(1) and 247(1).