2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal regarding paragraph 2 are assessed against the defendant.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff continuously occupied the land in this case, which is the original property devolving upon the plaintiff from Aug. 30, 1945, and determined that the plaintiff's possession of the land in this case was converted into an autonomous possession from Jan. 1, 1965 to Jan. 1, 1985 under the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the ownership, and that the period for the prescriptive acquisition has expired on Jan. 1, 1985. The defendant's defense that the plaintiff's possession was converted into another possession during the period for the prescriptive acquisition, or that the plaintiff renounced the rights of prescription after the expiration of the period for the prescriptive acquisition. Thus, the court below determined that the plaintiff's possession of the land in this case, which is the defendant's defense, was not changed into the ownership of the land in this case, or that the land in this case, as stated in the attached list No. 5 of the judgment of the court below, from Feb. 1, 1984 to 1987.

2. However, according to the records of this case, the contents of the loan agreement of this case are as follows: (a) under the premise that land listed in the attached list 2 through 5 of the judgment below is owned by the defendant; (b) the plaintiff leased the land to use and profit from the land; and (c) paid a certain fee as a good manager; and (d) if the period expires, it shall be restored to the original state. The land listed in the attached list 5 shall be seven times from February 1984 to 1991; and (b) the plaintiff concluded the same contract for the land listed in the above list 2 to 4 times for four times from 1987 to 1991; and (c) it is clear that the court below concluded the loan agreement of this case as evidence to acknowledge any defects in the plaintiff's expression of intention in the above loan agreement; (d) it is hard to see that the court below concluded the new contract agreement with the non-party witness as well as the court below's examination result; and (e) it is clear that the plaintiff's new public order or new statute of limitations period should be established.

3. As to the land listed in the attached list No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the loan contract for state property was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, the court below is justified in rejecting the defendant's defense of conversion into the possession of a third party and the waiver of the prescription interest. There is no error of violating the rules of evidence or violating the rules of evidence or violating the rules of evidence

4. Therefore, the appeal of this case on the land listed in the annexed list 2 through 5 of the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeal of the defendant is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)