Where the presumption of possession with autonomy is reversed;

The issue of possession with respect to the acquisition by prescription is determined by the nature of the source of possessory right. However, if the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, the possession is presumed to be possession independently under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, but it cannot be deemed that the possessor has an intention to exercise exclusive control like his own property by excluding the ownership of another person, i.e., the objective circumstance that the possessor cannot be viewed as possession with an intention to exercise exclusive control as his own property, i.e., if the possessor does not act normally or if the owner does not act naturally, the presumption of possession with the intention to hold possession is reversed when it is proved that the possessor

Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na16316 delivered on May 3, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The issue of possession with intention to hold possession is determined by the nature of the source of possessory right. However, if the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, the possession is presumed to be possession with intention to exercise exclusive control as his own property under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, i.e., objective circumstances where the possessor cannot be viewed as possession with intention to hold possession with intention to hold exclusive control as his own property by excluding the ownership of another person, i.e., if the possessor does not act normally or if the possessor does not act normally, the presumption of possession with intention to hold possession should be reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da15808, Feb. 22, 1991; 92Da40914, Apr. 9, 193; 93Da37397, Jun. 14, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below sought measures to allow the plaintiff to visit the Seoul National Tax Service prior to occupying the land of this case from the defendant. After that, in order to purchase the original building constructed on the land of this case from the non-party and prepare a document thereon, the plaintiff clearly stated that the above land is owned by the defendant, and it was not achieved intention whenever the plaintiff occupied the land of this case and sought a cooperation from related agencies several times to purchase it from the State, but it was not achieved intention every time. The judgment below reversed the presumption of autonomous possession because it is difficult to see that the plaintiff had an intention to exercise exclusive control like his own property by excluding the ownership of the state in the possession of the land of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just in light of the above legal principles and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption of autonomous possession, such as the theory of lawsuit, without merit.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)