2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership of the land of this case on January 5, 1996.

On the ground of the instant land, the first house (hereinafter “the first house of this case”) existed from the past.

B. On May 6, 1997, the Plaintiff concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant (the managing body of the land of this case is the head of North Jeju-do, and is referred to as "the Defendant" as "the managing body of the land of this case") on the land of this case with the Defendant until December 31, 200, and paid the prescribed rent and indemnity (from December 5, 1996 to April 28, 1997 as the period for calculating indemnity) and kept the farming equipment, etc. at the beginning of the instant house.

The loan agreement prepared at the time includes the following: “The plaintiff shall not assert the right to appeal against this property before and after the conclusion of this loan agreement, and in any case, shall not assert the right to appeal against this property” (Article 15).

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant renewed the existing loan agreement on the instant land with the period of December 30, 200 and December 31, 2003 respectively as three years, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 2 through 5 evidence, Eul's 3 to 6 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the land and the house of this case from the Dongdong residents around 1960, and used the above house as a warehouse for the agricultural organization's storage.

Although the instant land is registered as state property, it constitutes general property, not administrative property, and thus, the Plaintiff acquired the said land by prescription by occupying and using the instant land for 20 years with its own intent.

B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied the article as his/her own intention. Therefore, if the possessor claims the acquisition by prescription, he/she does not bear any responsibility to prove his/her own intention and the possessor’s intention