The possessor's possession shall bear the burden of proof of the other owner's possession, and the degree of its proof.

As long as the possessor's possession is presumed to be an independent possession, it is sufficient to prove objective circumstances that the possessor's possession cannot be viewed as possessing with the intention of exercising exclusive control as his own property by avoiding the presumption and the degree of proof means the intention of the original owner to exclude the ownership of another person and exercise exclusive control like his own property.

Articles 197(1) and 245 of the Civil Act, Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Da15808 delivered on February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1054) 90Da18838 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2115)

[Judgment of the court below]

Gwangju Metropolitan City

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Na1362 delivered on June 26, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the defendant acquired the prescription on October 5, 1945, 20 years after it was presumed that the defendant occupied the real estate of this case as well as the possession of the general public and vehicles until now since he opened a road on October 5, 1925 by taking into account the descriptions of Gap evidence 2 (written copy of land register), Gap evidence 3 (written copy of land cadastre), Eul evidence 1 (former copy of land cadastre), and non-party witness's testimony on October 5, 1925, the land category of the real estate of this case was changed from the site to the road on the site, and thereafter opened the road on the real estate of this case and opened the road on the road on the land of this case, and it was presumed that the defendant occupied the real estate of this case in a peaceful and peaceful manner with the intention to own it, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence.

As above, as long as the defendant's possession is presumed to be an independent possession, the plaintiff has the responsibility to prove that the possession is the possession of the other party by reversing the presumption, and the degree of proof refers to the intention of the original owner to exercise exclusive control like his own property by excluding the ownership of the other party. In light of the objective circumstance that it is not sufficient to prove that the original owner has an intention to exercise exclusive control, such as superficies, right to lease on a deposit basis, right to lease on a deposit basis, right to lease, etc., but it cannot be viewed that he has an intention to exercise exclusive control as his own property, such as superficies, right to lease on a deposit basis

The Supreme Court precedents on party members purport that the occupation of a local government, which is not presumed to be an independent possession, has changed to a road category, and that it does not constitute an independent possession from that time, and thus, does not constitute an appropriate precedent in this case. All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)