A. The fact that the Plaintiff occupied a X-76m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in Y-gu, Northern-si, Y-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si (hereinafter “the instant land”) is not disputed between the parties, or recognized by comprehensively

In addition, it is presumed that the possession of the Plaintiff’s land in this case was carried out in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intention of ownership (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act).

As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land around the summer in 1979, P, which is the litigation process of Defendant W, N, L, L, K, M, Q, R, and netO, did not sell the instant land to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's possession as a malicious occupant is not an independent possession.

However, as seen earlier, pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, since the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as the owner’s intention, there is no responsibility to prove the intention of possession in a case where the possessor asserts the acquisition by prescription. Rather, the possessor bears the burden of proving the establishment of the acquisition by prescription against the person who denies the possessor’s possession by asserting that the possessor’s possession does not have the intention to own. Furthermore, even in a case where it is not acknowledged even though the possessor asserts the right of possession, such as the purchase and sale or donation, but he does not have the burden of proving the right of possession by himself, the presumption of possession cannot be reversed or deemed to be the owner’s possession by the nature of the possessor’s source of possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da4953, Mar. 3, 195; 9Da72743, Feb. 26, 2002).