대상판결은 자기소유 부동산도 시효취득할 수 있다는 법리가 적어도 부동산 등기명의를 갖춘 소유자의 경우에는 적용될 수 없음을 종래 취득시효 제도의 취지인 사회질서 안정, 증명곤란의 구제의 관점에서 분명히 한 데 의의가 있다. 다만 위 법리가 등기명의를 갖추었는지 불문하고 현행 민법상 소유자와 관련해서는 운위될 수 없을 뿐만 아니라, 구민법상 대항력 없는 매수인과 종래 판례이론상 명의신탁자와 같은 내부적 소유자와 관련해서도 불필요한 것임을 분명히 하지 않은 점이 아쉽다. 판례상 정반대의 법리가 공존하는 현상을 극복하기 위해서는 후자와 관련한 일단의 판결례에서 그 판단 근거로 제시된 위 법리를 명시적으로 폐기하기를 기대한다. 종국적으로는 판례이론상 소유권의 관계적 분열이 극복되어야 할 것이다. 또한 대상판결은 소유자의 점유취득시효 주장에 대해 그가 등기명의를 갖추었다는 이유로 배척하지 않음으로써, 등기명의를 갖춘 무권리자의 점유시효취득 가능성을 열어두었다는 데서도 그 의의를 찾을 수 있다고 생각된다.

The Supreme Court Decision 2010Da89814 deals with the case as follows. The defendant put the real estate of his debtor under provisional attachment. After that the plaintiff purchased the estate from the debtor and registered it. Against the compulsory execution of the defendant the plaintiff raised the third party`s action for an objection on the ground of the completion of the acquisitive prescription, so that he acquired the personal ownership of the real estate originally and therefore the compulsory execution by defendant based on the attachment is invalid. The issue is that the possessor can acquire his own property by acquisitive prescription, what is widely accepted. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff`s claim based on the prevailing view for the reason that in the case of valid registration of ownership there is no need for owner to claim acquisitive prescription. The Supreme Court decision is acceptable. The decision makes clear that from the point of view of stabilizing the social order and relieving the difficulty of proving which is the purpose of the acquisitive prescription system, the rule approved by the prevailing opinion can not be applied at least to the real owner with valid registration. However, the Supreme Court could have better clarified that the rule can not be applied to the owner regardless of its registration and is not necessary for the purchaser under the old Civil Code and the nominal truster before Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder`s Name. In order to overcome the phenomenon of coexistence of opposing rules in the precedents, we expect the Supreme Court to explicitly discard the rule applied to latter case. Ultimately, the relational division of the ownership should be discarded. Also, the meaning of the decision can be found in the fact that it opens to the registered non-owner the way to acquiring the ownership by possession over 20 years, because it does not reject the possessor`s claim of acquisitive prescription for the reason of his registered ownership.