(a) The burden of proving the intention of possession with respect to the acquisition by prescription;

B. Whether the presumption of possession with autonomy is reversed where the possessor’s source of possessor’s right is not acknowledged (negative)

(c) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the local government, without acquiring the source of possessory right, opened a private land as a road and occupied it as an intention of possession, is not presumed to have been occupied as an intention of possession, and thus, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the possession with intention

A. The possessor is presumed to have occupied possession in peace and openly in accordance with Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, if the nature of the source of possessor’s right is not clear, according to the nature of the possessor’s right, the possessor, who is the subject of prescriptive acquisition, should be determined by virtue of the nature of the possessor’s source of right. Therefore, the possessor is not actively liable for proving that the possessor is the possessor is the owner, but is not the person who asserts that the possessor is the owner.

B. It cannot be deemed that the presumption of possession with intention to hold possession is reversed solely on the ground that the possessor is not recognized as the source of possessory right as alleged by the possessor.

(c) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that the local government, without acquiring the source of possessory right, opened a private land as a road and occupied it as an intention of possession, is not presumed to have been occupied as an intention of possession, and thus, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the possession with intention

Articles 197(1) and 245 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da8312 Decided December 26, 1990 (Gong1991, 83) (Gong1991, 614) (Gong1991, 614), 91Da8593, 8609 Decided June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1909). (B) Supreme Court Decision 89Da18440 Decided March 9, 1990 (Gong190, 870), 90Da1838 Decided July 9, 191 (Gong1991, 2115), 190Da19609 Decided June 28, 1991 (Gong196, 197Da1964979 delivered on June 19, 197).

Plaintiff 1 and 8 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Seo Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Gwangju High Court Decision 90Na1525 delivered on January 10, 1991

The case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court by destroying the part against the Defendants in the original judgment.

The First Ground for Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the non-party 1 acquired the above land of this case from the non-party 1 on July 1, 1969 by the Do governor of Jeju-do, the above land was owned by the non-party 2 to the non-party 3 who was the owner of the above land, and the above land was occupied by the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 from the beginning of the beginning of the 1.3 meters long from the beginning of the 3th line with the approval of the implementation plan for the extension of the main road from the beginning of the 1.3 meters long to December 30 of the same year, the above land was occupied by the non-party 2 to the non-party 1, 1969, and the above land was occupied by the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, the court below determined that the non-party 2 acquired the above land from the beginning of possession of each of the above land for the purpose of the non-party 17.

The presumption of possession with the intention of possession, which is the content of possession with the intention of possession, should be determined depending on the nature of the possessor, but if the nature of the title of possession is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have possession with the intention of possession in peace and openly pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the possessor is not actively liable to prove that the possessor is possession with the intention of possession, but actively bears the burden of proving it to the other party who asserts that the possessor is possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession, and the title of possession is not recognized, cannot be viewed as an possession with the reversal of the presumption of possession with the intention of possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu1483, Feb. 24, 1987; 89Meu1840, Mar. 9, 190).

Nevertheless, the decision of the court below as seen above is difficult to avoid criticism that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on possession with possession with an intention to hold another issue, which is the requirements for acquisition by prescription, and it is reasonable to criticize this issue, and thus the necessity of judgment on another issue is reversed and remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)