1. The possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with his/her own intent (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). As such, in principle, the possessor is not liable to prove that he/she has occupied as his/her own intent when claiming the acquisition by prescription, and rather, the possessor’s burden of proof is borne by the person who seeks to deny the establishment of the acquisition by prescription on the ground that the possession

However, it is not determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the external and objective determination in light of the nature of the title that was the cause of the acquisition of ownership or all the circumstances related to the possession. Thus, if the possessor knowingly possesses real estate owned by another person without permission at the time of the commencement of possession without permission without permission, barring any special circumstances, the possessor shall be deemed not to have rejected the ownership of another person and not to have the intention of possession. Accordingly, the presumption of the possession with the intention of ownership is broken down.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 1997). Such a legal doctrine applies to cases in which the State or a local government occupies.

If the State or a local government has occupied or used a private land without a specific title to possess the land, such as taking procedures for acquiring the public property, such as the collection of contributions, or obtaining the consent of its owners, as prescribed by the State Property Act, the Local Finance Act, etc., such as the collection of contributions, or obtaining the consent of its owners, barring special circumstances, the presumption

However, the state or local government has failed to submit documents on the acquisition procedure of land claiming the completion of prescriptive acquisition.

even such possession.