The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If the nature of the source of possessory right of real estate is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Such presumption is equally applied to the possession by the State or a local government, which is the managing body of the cadastral record, etc., and even in the case where the possessor asserted the title of possession, such as purchase and sale or donation, but this is not recognized, the presumption of possession is reversed solely for such reason, or the possession is not deemed to

(1) The State, etc. is not obliged to submit the document regarding the procedure for acquiring land, the completion of which is claimed by the State, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94731, 94748, Mar. 27, 2014). Therefore, even if the State, etc. is unable to submit the document regarding the procedure for acquiring ownership, considering the following: (a) the details and purpose of occupation; (b) whether the State, etc., made efforts to exercise ownership on the cadastral record, etc. after the commencement of occupation; and (c) the relationship between the use or disposal of divided land and other land, if the State, etc. cannot exclude the possibility that it

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94731, 94748, etc.). 2. A.

The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the prescriptive acquisition of each of the instant lands, on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant occupied and used each of the instant lands without following lawful acquisition procedures, on the grounds that the Defendant’s presumption of possession of independent possession of each of the instant lands was reversed, on the grounds that the closed register and land cadastre of each of the instant lands incorporated into the site for expansion of the industrial road before the Busan Educational University was preserved,

B. However, the lower court’s judgment.