Of the judgment of the court below, the part against the Defendants regarding land Nos. 1 is reversed.

1. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intention. Therefore, if the possessor claims the acquisition by prescription, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention. Rather, the possessor bears the burden of proving that he/she is the possessor’s possession without the intention of possession.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 1997, etc.). Moreover, even in a case where the possessor asserts the right of possession with the intention to own, such as sale and purchase or donation, but this is not recognized, the presumption of possession with the intention to own cannot be reversed or deemed as the possession with the nature of the possessor’s source of possession, solely on the ground that the possessor’s source of possession right is not recognized unless the possessor bears the burden of proving the title of possession with the intention

(2) Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to State Property and Article 5 of the Addenda of the former Act provide that property devolving upon State property, the sale contract of which has not been concluded by the end of December 1, 1964, shall be deemed to be State property free of charge. Thus, property devolving upon State property may be deemed State property from January 1, 1965 and shall be deemed to be owned by the intention of ownership thereafter. In this case, the existence of the intention to own property shall be determined objectively and objectively by the nature of the title that has caused the acquisition of the ownership, or by all circumstances related to the possession.

2. On December 7, 199, the lower court: (a) obtained unjust enrichment from the Republic of Korea on the ground that the Defendants occupied the land No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) indicated in the lower judgment, which is a State-owned property, without permission; and (b) obtained unjust enrichment from the Republic of Korea.