Property Ownership Dispute: Adverse Possession Claim Litigation
Article 9. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to evict the Defendant and his associates from the land, alleging trespass and unauthorized occupation. The Defendant contended that the disputed property was located adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land and was not the Plaintiff’s property. The Defendant requested the Court to dismiss the lawsuit. June 1, 2003, for 30 days, on June 20th, the Defendant supplemented his testimony and filed a rebuttal lawsuit, stating that if it were to be assumed that the Defendant had trespassed into the Plaintiff’s disputed land, the Defendant had peacefully possessed the land and was therefore the rightful owner of the land, openly and intentionally, for a period of eleven years. The dispute arose on the expiration date, June 19, 2003, and consequently, the Defendant requested the Court to order that the disputed land belonged to the Defendant and to compel the Plaintiff to register the land. The Plaintiff objected, maintaining his original testimony and arguing that the proposed amendments were irrelevant. The Court and the Defendant’s rebuttal lawsuit were accepted. The Trial Court ordered the acceptance of the supplemental testimony and rebuttal lawsuit as follows: Let the Judge determine whether the Trial Court’s acceptance of the Defendant’s request for amendment of testimony and rebuttal lawsuit is in accordance with the law. Regarding the rebuttal lawsuit filed after the Defendant had presented his testimony, it is required to file an additional testimony to supplement the rebuttal lawsuit, as stipulated in the Civil Procedure Code. The Defendant’s refusal to amend his testimony and rebuttal lawsuit was deemed incorrect. The Defendant’s refusal to amend his testimony can be done regardless of whether the testimony being amended relates to the original testimony or not (Supreme Court Judgement No. 1723/2513 and 2297/2515). When the Defendant filed a request to amend his testimony before the evidentiary hearing, Section 181 of the Civil Procedure Code was correctly applied. Therefore, the Trial Court’s acceptance of the supplemental testimony was proper. As for the rebuttal lawsuit, according to Section 179(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, a party is prohibited from filing a rebuttal lawsuit unless the original lawsuit and subsequent lawsuit can be jointly considered and adjudicated. This means that the original testimony related to the issue of possession, which is a separate issue and unrelated. If the Court were to find that the Defendant did not trespass, the Court would dismiss the lawsuit without having to adjudicate the Defendant’s claim. (Supreme Court Judgement No. 5574/2539). The Court’s acceptance of the rebuttal lawsuit was therefore improper.
Mr. Som sued for the inherited land of Mr. Sin, deceased, from Mr. Seubsaeng, claiming that