The presumption of the possessor’s autonomous possession and the title of the possession

Although the possessor is presumed to possess with the intention of possession, he is not presumed to hold possession with the intention of possession, it is obvious that he has no intention of possession with the title of possession.

Article 197(1) of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellant No. 10

Daegu District Court Decision 80Na59 delivered on July 16, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 and No. 1 of the supplementary grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's deceased non-party 1 was in title trust with the plaintiff's deceased non-party 2, well-known non-party 4, Oct. 4, 1917, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff's non-party 1 borrowed money from the non-party 3 (OOOO) and provided as security at his survival, and that the plaintiff's ownership was transferred to the non-party 2 and purchased from the defendant. In light of the records, the court below found that the plaintiff's above plaintiff's deceased non-party 1 was a clerical error in the plaintiff's deceased father non-party 4, and that the defendant's major facts in this case were the defendant's evidence assistance and the non-party 2 purchased the forest of this case from the non-party 3, and that there were no other facts alleged in the court below's assertion that the defendant did not have any error in finding the facts as to the above facts.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4 as well as the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4 are also examined.

All theories do not appear to the effect that the judgment of the court below is criticized on the ground that evidence preparation and fact-finding falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, which is the fact-finding court. Thus, even if the court below examined the process of evidence production by the records, it cannot be viewed that there was an error of misjudgmenting the value judgment of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and that there was a misunderstanding of the rules of evidence selection. This issue cannot be accepted. The grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and the grounds of appeal No. 3

It is like the theory of the presumption that the possessor is presumed to possess the forest in this case as the owner's intention, but it is not presumed to possess the forest in this case as the owner's possession with the intention of possession. Thus, the possession in order to manage another person's property is not presumed to be possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession. Thus, in this case, it cannot be presumed to be possession with the nature of its title. However, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below on this point is somewhat insufficient. However, there is no dispute that the plaintiff has occupied the forest in this case after June 25, but the purport of the judgment below is that the owner has transferred the forest in this case to the defendant (the plaintiff in writing to the defendant) through the non-party 3, so the owner's transfer of the forest in this case to the defendant (the plaintiff in writing to the plaintiff). Thus, the plaintiff's possession cannot be deemed to be an independent possession with the nature of the title, or there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff has commenced possession with the new title.

This paper cannot be accepted.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The 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 Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)