1. If the nature of the source of possessory right of real estate is not clear, the possessor shall be presumed to have occupied in good faith and public performance with his/her own intent pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Such presumption is equally applied to the possession by the State or a local government, which is the managing body of the cadastral record, etc., and even in cases where the possessor asserted the title of possession, such as sale and purchase or donation, but such assertion is not acknowledged, the presumption of possession with autonomy cannot be deemed to have been reversed or to have been occupied by the nature of the source of possessory right, solely on the ground that the possessor is not recognized as the source

(2) The State, etc., did not submit a document regarding the procedure for acquiring land for the completion of the acquisition by prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da72743, Feb. 26, 2002). Therefore, even if the State, etc. failed to submit a document regarding the procedure for acquiring the acquisition of land for which the completion of the acquisition by prescription was claimed, considering the following: (a) the circumstance and purpose of the possession; (b) whether the State, etc., made efforts to exercise ownership after the commencement of possession; and (c) the use or disposal of divided land; and (d) the possibility that the State, etc., lawfully acquired the ownership by undergoing the procedure

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da94731, 94748, Mar. 27, 2014; 2015Da207860, Jul. 9, 2015). 2. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense and counterclaim claim that “The period of prescription for the acquisition of possession has expired since the land category of the instant land was occupied as the owner’s intent since the land category was changed to the road.”

3.(a)

However, the judgment of the court below.