The legal status given to de facto control over a thing is legally called "possession." Article 245(1) of the Civil Act (period for acquiring ownership of real estate through possession) provides that "a person who has possessed real estate peacefully and openly for 20 years with the intention of owning it acquires ownership by registration." A system that, where a certain factual state continues, recognizes the legal relationship as it stands without examining whether that state reflects the true right is called prescription, and taken together this is called acquisitive prescription by possession. (Kim Sang-mu, 2011, A Study on the Relationship between a Person Who Has Completed Acquisitive Prescription of Real Estate by Possession and Third Parties, Yeungnam University)

1. Autonomous possession (Park Chan-hui, 2014, A Study on Acquisitive Prescription of Real Estate by Possession, Wonkwang University Graduate School, Department of Law)

Possession held with the intention of ownership is legally called autonomous possession. A possessor is presumed to possess with the intention of ownership (Civil Act Article 197(1)).

The presumption of the intention of ownership under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act is rebutted when (1) it is proven that the possessor acquired possession under a title whose nature indicates that there was no intention of ownership, or (2) circumstances are proven from which, according to the rules of experience, it can be seen that there was no intention of ownership, that is, circumstances from which, judging outwardly and objectively, the possessor can be seen as not having had the intention to possess while excluding another's ownership, such as where, during possession, the possessor showed an attitude a true owner would not ordinarily take, or failed to act as an owner would naturally have acted.

(Supreme Court decision 90Da15808, rendered February 22, 1991) Supreme Court decision 90Da15808, rendered February 22, 1991 [Registration of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate] [Gong 1991.4.15.(894), 1054]

Since Gap asserted acquisitive prescription by possession, one must determine autonomous possession, the title at the time possession began, and, based on Supreme Court decisions, assess the period of possession, conduct during that period, and any change of owner at the time prescription was completed. The fact of acquisition after the completion of prescription as determined by the court cannot be an object of assessment.

Question 2. Gap disagreed with the first-instance court's decision and appealed. Afterward, the first-instance court realized its decision was wrong and wishes to make a decision on the merits as to whether acquisitive prescription by possession was completed. Explain whether this is possible.

(Civil Procedure Act Article 437) In any of the following cases, the court of final appeal shall render a final judgment on the case: (1) where the judgment is reversed on the ground that the application of law to the established facts was wrong and the case is sufficiently ready to be decided on the basis of those facts; (2) where the judgment is reversed on the ground that the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the courts.

When the Supreme Court reverses the lower court's judgment and decides the case itself rather than remanding or transferring it to the lower court, this is called reversal and self-judgment.

Because the subject matter of the suit is the starting point for determining the prohibition of duplicate suits (Civil Procedure Act Article 259), the joinder and amendment of claims, and the objective scope of res judicata, in case questions it is important first to fix the subject matter of the suit and then apply it to each system. Our case law generally follows the old theory of the subject matter of suit and treats each substantive right as a separate subject matter, so claims for damages for tort and for non-performance of an obligation are separate subject matters. This material is well suited to case-type questions on civil procedure midterms and finals, foundational study for legal aptitude, and case-summary assignments.