1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. As to the argument that the plaintiff filed an appeal and submitted in the trial of the court of the first instance is identical to the reasoning for the decision of the court of the first instance, the court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning for the decision of the court of the first instance is identical to that for the decision of the court of the first instance, except where the plaintiff added the decision as set forth in the following paragraph (2).

【The part used by 【(A)” refers to the objective relationship in which a person is deemed to be in a factual control in light of the social concept, and is in de facto control, it does not necessarily mean only physical actual control over an object. It should be determined in conformity with the social concept by taking into account the temporal and spatial relationship with the object, the relationship between the object and the person, the possibility of exclusion from control of others, etc. In particular, the transfer of possession or the continuation of possession of forest land does not necessarily require physical and practical control (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da38266, Jun. 23, 1992; 2014Da202622, May 29, 2014).

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not continue to maintain the state of exclusive control to the extent that the Defendant would objectively clarify the forest of this case.

In addition, the defendant did not disclose the detailed details of the completion of the registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case, and did not submit any particular data on the grounds for the acquisition of the forest of this case. The defendant's possession of the forest of this case is an unauthorized possession and thus the presumption of possession with the intention to own was broken.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s prescriptive acquisition of the instant forest is completed.

B. We examine the facts and evidence cited prior to the Defendant’s possession of the instant forest as to the instant forest.