The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the Defendant acquired the instant land by prescription by occupying the instant land in good faith and with intent to own it for ten years from the date of completing the registration of ownership transfer as to 1,331 square meters of C forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) on March 30, 201, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

2. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant occupied the instant land, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on possession.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s determination that the Defendant occupied the instant land without negligence for the following reasons.

The burden of proving negligence, which is the requirement for the acquisition by prescription of the registry concerning real estate, shall be the person who asserts the acquisition by prescription, and the purchaser of the real estate shall, unless there are special circumstances, investigate whether the seller has the right to dispose of the real estate, and if he purchased the real estate without such investigation, even though he could have known the seller that he had no right to dispose of the real estate if he had conducted such investigation, there

(B) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da13052 Decided June 25, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 90Da13178 Decided February 12, 1991, etc.

The judgment below

The following circumstances revealed by the reasoning and the record, i.e., the Plaintiff’s representative at the time of May 7, 200, which was the date of concluding the exchange contract of this case as indicated in the judgment of the court below, but the nominal owner on the register of the land of this case was the Plaintiff, and ② Nevertheless, the exchange contract of this case with the land of this case owned by H and the Defendant and the land of E as indicated in the judgment of the court below, is the Plaintiff’