beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
Reasons
The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant's additional determination as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article
On September 3, 1991, E, the former owner of the land adjacent to the instant case, and F Co., Ltd., the former owner of the instant land (hereinafter “F”), F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), the former owner of the instant land, exchanged a part of 55 square meters (hereinafter “F”) in the ship (hereinafter “the instant land”) (hereinafter “F”) connected each point of No. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 with the instant land in sequence. Since the Defendant purchased the instant adjacent land from E on November 3, 1994 after the Defendant succeeded to the possession of the instant land and possessed the instant land up to the present day, the Defendant’s possession is an independent possession.
Therefore, the Defendant acquired the pertinent land by prescription on November 3, 2014 after the lapse of 20 years from November 3, 1994.
Judgment
The issue of whether the possessor’s possession is an independent possession or an absence of the intention of possession is determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, not by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that is the cause of the acquisition of possession or by all circumstances related to the possession. As such, it is proved that the possessor acquired the possession on the basis of the title that the possessor does not have the intention of ownership due to its nature, or cannot be viewed as an possession with the intention of exercising exclusive control as his own property by excluding another’s ownership. In other words, it is objective that the possessor cannot be viewed as an possession with the intention of exercising exclusive control as his own property.