Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of a special circumstance to recognize the possibility of acquiring the ownership of the instant land through lawful donation procedures, on the grounds that the Plaintiff, based on Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da99143 Decided November 24, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da73981 Decided January 10, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da73981 Decided January 10, 201.

However, the above Supreme Court decision cited by the Plaintiff is related to the case where the State or a local government failed to fully submit objective data supporting the fact that it had taken the procedure for acquiring public property under the State Property Act or the Local Finance Act.

As seen earlier, the presumption of autonomous possession under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act is applied to possession by the State, etc. of the State, and the possibility that the State had gone through a lawful procedure for acquiring land ownership at the time of commencement of possession can not be ruled out even though the real estate registry did not include the support for acquisition of ownership in real estate and did not submit the documents concerning the procedure for acquisition of land, the presumption of autonomous possession cannot

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da216850 Decided December 11, 2014). Moreover, the possibility that the Defendant could not exclude the possibility that the instant land had gone through a lawful procedure for acquiring ownership of the instant land was included in the approval conditions of the primary business plan, which appears to have been prepared by the Defendant in the process of approving the instant business plan, is among the documents Nos. 27, Nos. 1, 5, and 15.