"I Thought It Was My Land"... The Fate of a Building Owner Who Encroached on 94㎡ of Another's Property

Building Constructed with 94 Square Meters Encroaching on Another’s Land
Lower Courts: “20 Years of Occupation, Ownership Recognized”
Supreme Court: “Not a Mistake... Acquisitive Prescription Not Allowed”

The Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot claim ownership of land simply because a building has stood on a significant portion of someone else’s property for 20 years. If the area of encroachment exceeds what could be considered a typical construction error, it is viewed as intentional unauthorized occupation despite knowing the land belonged to someone else, and the statute of limitations for acquisitive prescription cannot be recognized.

Yonhap News Agency

According to the legal community on June 29, the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Shin Sook-hee) overturned and remanded a case in which the lower court had ruled in favor of building owner Mr. B in a lawsuit filed by landowner Mr. A for the return of unjust enrichment, as well as a counterclaim by Mr. B for the registration of transfer of ownership.

In 1993, Mr. B purchased a plot of land (76㎡) in Paju and constructed a building on it. Later, when the owner of the adjacent land (106㎡) passed away and his son, Mr. A, inherited the property, it was revealed that Mr. B’s building had encroached on as much as 94㎡ of Mr. A’s land, not just his own original plot.

Mr. A filed a lawsuit demanding the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the back rent owed, while Mr. B counter-sued, arguing that he had possessed the land peacefully and openly for 20 years, and thus had acquired ownership under the Civil Act. The claim was based on the principle of acquisitive prescription, which allows someone to acquire ownership of real estate if it is possessed peacefully, openly, and with the intention of ownership for 20 years.

Both the first and second instance courts accepted Mr. B’s argument. The courts ruled that since Mr. B had believed he was occupying his own land since 1993, the statute of limitations for acquisitive prescription had expired, and thus Mr. A should transfer title to the land to Mr. B.

However, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling, finding that Mr. B likely knew from the outset that he was building on someone else’s land. According to Supreme Court precedents, if the building encroaches on another’s land to an extent that exceeds a typical construction mistake, it should be considered that the builder was aware of the encroachment. In such cases, the intention of ownership (“adverse possession”) is nullified, and the statute of limitations for acquisitive prescription cannot be applied.

The court explained, “The area encroached by Mr. B’s building (94㎡) goes beyond what could be considered a common construction error. Furthermore, when Mr. B lost his adjacent property in a court auction in 1999, he acknowledged that the building was on someone else’s land, which makes it impossible to recognize adverse possession.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.