According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant acquired ownership due to the expiration of the 20-year period of acquisition of the real estate in this case, but the defendant was the person who occupied this land without a title during the 20-year period of the master office, and therefore, it cannot be recognized that he possessed it with an intention to own.

However, unless there are special circumstances, such as the fact that the possessor is not recognized as the possessor's possession in the nature of the source of right, the possessor is presumed to have possession as the owner's intention, and the possessor must be recognized as the owner's possession in the nature of the source of right, and there is a burden of proof for the possessor's possession. Thus, the defendant's assertion for the acquisition of the ownership due to the expiration of the acquisition period due to the possession of the land without the source of right. The fact that the possession without source of right can be presumed as a ground for estimating the possessor's bad intent or negligence in the part of the source of right, and the fact that the possession without source of right is not the owner's possession without the source of right, but the fact is not the owner's possession with the nature of the source of right. The court below rejected the defendant's argument on the ground that the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles of the autonomous possession, or by failing to exhaust all the burden

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu