If the nature of possessory right is obscure, the subject of the burden of proof and the degree of proof; and

If the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have possession with his intention of possession. Thus, the possessor does not have the responsibility to prove that he is the possession with the nature of the source of possessory right, and the other party who asserts the possession with the presumption of possession as above has the burden of proving the possession with respect to the possession of the other party. In this context, for the purpose of proving that the other party to the possessor is the possession of the other party, at least the possessor has the intention to exercise exclusive control, such as his own property, and must prove

Articles 197(1) and 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da2779, 27805 Decided October 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 290) Decided November 26, 1991 (Gong1992, 3120) 92Da40914, 40921 Decided April 9, 1993 (Gong193, 1361)

Plaintiff-Appellant Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 92Na2435 delivered on February 19, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Where a registration of preservation of ownership has been made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Unclaimed Land (Act No. 3627), the registration is completed in accordance with the lawful procedure prescribed in the same Act, and it is presumed that it conforms to the substantive legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da4874 delivered on October 8, 191). Accordingly, the court below acknowledged the fact that the registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the deceased non-party 1 in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Management of the Land in this case with the same purport, and rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds that there is no evidence that the registration of preservation of ownership has been made based on the false or forged letter of guarantee and confirmation, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of misconception of facts or incomplete deliberation

In addition, if the court does not prove the facts of dispute as one of the exercise of the right to explanation, it shall have the duty to demand proof, but it shall be limited to the case where it is evident that it is not proven due to negligence or misunderstanding of the party who has the burden of proof, and it is not necessarily necessary to submit the evidence. Therefore, the court below's failure to accept the application for other method of evidence cannot be said to have violated the law.

2. The existence or existence of the possessor's intention, which is an objective element for the acquisition by prescription, is determined by the nature of the source of possessor's right which is the cause of the acquisition by possession. However, since the possessor is presumed to have possession with his intention when the nature of the source of possessor's right is unclear, the possessor does not bear the burden of proving that he is possession with intention of possession by the nature of the source of possessor's right, and the possessor does not bear the burden of proving that he is possession with intention of possession by the other party who asserts the possession by reversal of the presumption of the above law (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da6139 delivered on July 12, 191). Here, in order to prove that the other party to the possessor is the possessor's possession by removing another person's ownership and exercising exclusive control as his own property, the possessor must prove that at least there is an objective circumstance that cannot be deemed to have been possession by the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da254

We examine the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records. The court below found that the defendant occupied the house constructed on the land of this case since September 1962 and occupied, used, and occupied it in a peaceful manner for 20 years or more by an ombudsman. However, the defendant continued to use the land of this case with the knowledge that the land of this case was owned by the defendant 1, and the defendant paid the end of the bean (2) on the early December 198, 198, and (3) after the death of the deceased non-party 1, it was found that the non-party 1 knew that the land of this case was sold to the plaintiff and disposed of it without any limit from the plaintiff, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to mistake of facts due to the rules of evidence, the reason for the use of the land of this case, and the possession of the defendant by nature, and there is no ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)