This supreme court’s decision quashed the original judgement rejecting the acquisition of ownership based on the completion of prescription by possession on the ground that the registered name changes due to the initiation of bankruptcy or reorganization(turnaround) proceedings after the completion, and ruled that there is no change of the registered name if the proceedings already ends before the dispute begins. This supreme courts’s decision has a problem in logic because something exists should not be treated like nothing. Further the acquisition of ownership will be determined by a random contribution, such as when the dispute about the ownership begins, according to this decision. Thus, in this article, I showed this problem and argued this problem comes up the supreme court considers only ‘suitability in outcome’ when the different systems cross. Further, I argued that a more detailed discussion is needed in order to avoid this kind of problem.