부당이득금
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, since the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intention, the possessor does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention in cases of claiming the acquisition by prescription, and rather, he/she bears the burden of proving to the person denying the establishment of the acquisition by prescription by asserting that the possessor has no intention to own it. Therefore, the possessor is proved on the basis of the title that the possessor is deemed to have no intention to own by nature, or cannot be deemed to have occupied with the intent to exercise exclusive control like his/her own property by excluding the ownership of another person, in cases where it is proved that the possessor had no intention to own it, namely, the objective circumstance that the possessor cannot be deemed to have occupied with the intention to exercise exclusive control as his/her own property
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on August 21, 1997, and Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Da37661 delivered on March 16, 2000, etc.). Based on the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Korea Farmland Improvement Association comprehensively succeeded to the Defendant’s rights and obligations has occupied and managed the land of this case as the site of the reservoir from 1952 as the land of the reservoir. The Defendant is presumed to have occupied the land of this case in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intent to own the land of this case, and the Defendant tried to purchase the land of this case after the completion of the statute of limitations for possession due to the fact that the land of this case was originally under the circumstances against the Plaintiff’s capital increase and loss B or after
The fact that the procedure under Article 5 (6) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Loss was followed can not be said to have broken the presumption of possession with the above autonomy.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and there are grounds for appeal.