beta
Text
1. The Defendant made the Plaintiff the reason for the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on April 10, 2012 with respect to the land size of 463 square meters in Jinju-si.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on December 17, 1969 with respect to the land size of 1,983 square meters in Jinju-si.
On September 10, 1980, among the above land, 1,403 square meters have been divided into farmland improvement and a wide area has been reduced to 580 square meters. On September 12, 2008, 117 square meters have been subdivided by consultation on public land, and it still remains 463 square meters.
(A) The Plaintiff’s father’s father’s father’s Dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok-dok (hereinafter “instant land”).
[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the intention of possession, which is the requirement for possession with respect to the acquisition by prescription as to the cause of claim of the whole pleadings, is objectively determined by the nature of the possessory right. However, if the nature of the possessory right is not clear, it is presumed that the possessor has possession with his intention to own pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the possessor is not responsible for proving his/her possession with the nature of the possessory right, and the possessor bears the burden of proving the possessor's possession with respect to the owner's possession with no intention to own.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da56765 delivered on March 24, 200). From April 10, 1992 to April 10, 1992, the fact that the Plaintiff continuously occupied and cultivated the land of this case is difficult, as seen earlier. The Plaintiff’s possession is presumed to have been carried out by the intention of possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Even if the nature of the possessory right claimed by the Plaintiff is unclear, it cannot be deemed that the presumption of possession is immediately broken, and there is no other evidence to deem the Plaintiff’s possession as the owner.