1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) comprehensively based on the adopted evidence, each of the land of this case was classified as the first bank and the second bank constructed by the Department of Shipbuilding General in around 1941, and used as the site or exclusion; and (b) Osan, including I bank and J bank, was managed by the defendant, a local government, as a local government.

Based on such factual premise, the lower court determined that the presumption of autonomous possession of each of the lands of this case cannot be reversed solely on the ground that, even if the Defendant did not submit the documents on the acquisition procedure of each of the lands of this case, it is difficult to conclude that the State occupied each of the lands of this case without permission, in addition to the developments and purposes of occupation and use of each of the lands of this case, the site adjacent to each of the lands of this case was purchased by the State in 1939 and 1942, and there was a provision stating that the State shall compensate the landowner for damages incurred by river works in accordance with the river-related Acts and subordinate statutes at the time.

Furthermore, the lower court held that, upon completion of the prescriptive acquisition for real estate, the possessor may file a claim against the nominal owner for the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure due to the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, and that the nominal owner is obliged to comply with this, the nominal owner with such obligation shall be the possessor whose prescriptive acquisition has been completed.