The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, an occupant of an object shall be presumed to have occupied the object with his/her intention to own. However, in cases where it is proved that the possessor occupied an immovable property owned by another person without permission, even though he/she was aware of the absence of such legal requirements without the legal act or any other legal requirements, barring special circumstances, the possessor shall be deemed not to have the intention to reject the ownership of another person and not to possess it. Thus, the presumption of the possession with the intent to own is broken.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the parties to the contract are aware of the fact that the parties to the contract knew of such fact, barring any special circumstance, in a case where the area of the land subject to sale exceeds considerably the area indicated in the registry. In such a case, barring special circumstances, such as where the seller acquired the ownership of the excess portion and agreed to transfer it to another party, the excess portion should be deemed a sale of the right of occupation and use. Thus, the possession constitutes possession by the nature of the right of occupation and use.

(대법원 1999. 5. 25. 선고 98다62046 판결 등 참조). 2. 원심은 채택증거를 종합하여 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음, ① 이 사건 제1토지와 제2토지는 행정구역을 달리하고 있는 데다 두 토지 사이에는 산등성이가 기다랗게 형성되어 있는 점, ② 이 사건 토지의 면적은 1,657㎡로서 피고가 매수한 이 사건 제2토지의 면적인 23,405㎡와 비교하면 그 초과된 면적 비율이 7% 정도에 불과하기는 하나, 다른 한편 그 절대적인 면적이 500평을 초과할 뿐만 아니라, 피고는 원고의 이 사건 제1토지에 인접한 제3자 소유의 전남 영암군 T 임야 8,727㎡ 중 1,302㎡ 지상에도 감나무 36그루를 식재하여 위 부분 토지를...