1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. The reasoning of this court’s explanation as to each of the above parts is the same as that of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Ulsan Metropolitan City Dong-gu Office or the Korea Asset Management Corporation on each of the instant land from the Ulsan Metropolitan City Office to the present date, and paid the loan fee, or paid the indemnity by the head of the Dong-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City upon receiving an imposition of indemnity by illegal possession.

Therefore, the presumption of autonomous possession of each of the above lands is reversed during the period of prescription for the Plaintiff’s possession of each of the above lands, or even if the acquisition by prescription has been completed, the benefit of the acquisition by prescription was waived.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is an illegal occupant in bad faith, and that the Defendant constitutes a third party who acquired real estate after the completion of the prescription period. However, as seen next, the Defendant’s remaining arguments are not further determined, since the presumption of the possession of an indemnity based on the conclusion of a loan agreement and the payment of indemnity based on the premise of an illegal occupancy or the waiver of prescription benefits.

B. (1) The determination of the relevant legal doctrine is based on objective circumstances, which cannot be deemed that the possessor occupies the land with an intention to exercise exclusive control as his/her own property by excluding another person’s ownership, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the payment of indemnity for the land or the possession after the conclusion of the loan contract is deemed as the possession of the land, inasmuch as the possessor, who paid indemnity for the land without permission during the process of acquisition

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da52936, Apr. 10, 1998). Moreover, the possessor is a state-owned property.