Cases of erroneous interpretation of the presumption of possessory right;

In order to reject the claim of lien based on the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs for the article in possession, since it is presumed that a person who possesses any article is presumed to possess it in good faith and openly, as well as that the possessor legally holds the right of possession for the article in possession, there must be at least the other party's assertion that the possession was commenced due to the tort or that there was no right to possess it at the time of disbursement of beneficial costs, or that it was grossly negligent for not being aware of it.

Article 200 of the Civil Act, Article 197(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant Counterclaim (Attorney Shin New-chul, Counsel for defendant-Counterclaim)

Cheongju District Court Decision 65Na78, 130 delivered on March 9, 1966

The part against the defendant regarding the principal lawsuit in the original judgment shall be reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Cheongju District Court.

The appeal by the counterclaim (Defendant) against the counterclaim in the original judgment is dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from an appeal regarding a counterclaim shall be borne by the counter-resident.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff merely referred to as Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff) asserted that the forest of this case was originally owned by the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, and was sold to the Defendant from the clan to the Nonparty at the time of the non-party’s existence of the deceased non-party, a clan member’s title to the non-party, with the consent of the clan member, and the Plaintiff rejected any evidence supporting the fact that the Plaintiff directly entered into a special agreement to transfer the ownership of the forest of this case to the Defendant, and based on the evidence that it was difficult to believe, it was against the rules of evidence that the instant forest was duly inherited to the Plaintiff as the inherent property of the Plaintiff’s fleet, and that the lower court did not criticize the Plaintiff without any legitimate ground for the selection of evidence, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court, and therefore, the appeal is without merit.

The judgment on the third ground of appeal by the defendant's attorney;

Upon examining the original judgment, the court below rejected the defendant's defense against the defense of the right of retention against the forest land, which is premised on the defendant's right to demand reimbursement of 3,300 square meters out of the defendant's main forest land, on the ground that there is no evidence that the defendant lawfully occupies the forest land. However, it is presumed that the possessor of a certain object is presumed to possess the intention, good faith, peace, and public performance (see Article 197 (1) of the Civil Act) and that the possessor is legally holding the right to exercise the right to the forest land (see Article 200 of the Civil Act). Thus, the court below rejected the defendant's defense without any special counter-proof, on the ground that there is no evidence that the defendant's possession of the forest land is legitimate, on the ground that there is no evidence that the above explanation provision of the presumption of possession right is erroneous, and that there is no error in interpreting the law, and that the defendant's defense against the defendant's assertion that the defendant's possession of the forest land should not be justified at least 15.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)