The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District 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 openly in accordance with Article 197(1) of the Civil Code, and such presumption shall also apply to cases where the State or a local government, which is the managing body of cadastral records, etc.

In addition, in a case where it is proved that the possessor occupied real estate owned by another person without permission knowing the existence of any legal act or other legal requirements that may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession without permission, barring any special circumstance, the possessor shall be deemed not to have an intention to reject the ownership of another person and to occupy it. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intention to own is broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625, Aug. 21, 1997). However, even if the State or a local government fails to submit documents concerning the procedure for the acquisition of land claiming the completion of acquisition by prescription, it cannot be concluded that the cadastral record, etc. on such land was occupied with the knowledge that the State or a local government was the owner of the public cadastral record, etc. before the commencement of possession, or because there was no other reason. In light of the situation and purpose of the possession, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the State or a local government lawfully acquired the ownership through the procedure for the acquisition of land without permission.