1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “the Defendant”) had been aware of a violation of the land of this case at the time when the Defendant constructed the Defendant’s housing, etc., and occupied the land of this case by constructing a house, a garage, and a warehouse (hereinafter “the Defendant’s housing, etc.”) again on the ground that part of the FL, 16,299 square meters (hereinafter “the instant ditch”) owned by the State adjacent to the E-Gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “the Defendant”) and the south-do adjacent to the south-do (hereinafter “the instant land”), and that part of the FL, 86 square meters adjacent to the south-do (hereinafter “the instant ditch”), which was owned by the Plaintiff, had been occupied by the Defendant at around 1978, and that the presumption of autonomous possession of the land of this case was broken out or that possession was converted into possession with another owner. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant acquired the ownership of the land of this case on May 25, 16, as the Defendant’s land.

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Therefore, even if a building was caused by mistake in the course of constructing a building and the boundary of an adjacent land, it cannot be readily concluded that the occupancy of the adjacent land is not based on the intention to own the adjacent land. However, in general, a person who intends to newly construct a building with a specific land as a site is ordinarily found to have confirmed the location and area of the site in advance by drawing, etc., and then going beyond the degree of error in construction that would normally lead to the area of the building.