The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. If the nature of the source of possessory right of real estate is not clear, the possessor shall be presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance by his/her own will pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, and such presumption shall also apply where the State or a local government, which is a managing body

In addition, in a case where it is proved that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission knowing the fact that the possessor does not meet the legal requirements such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession without permission, barring special circumstances, 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.

However, in cases where the completion of prescriptive acquisition is asserted for the land possessed by the State, a local government, or a public institution (hereinafter “State, etc.”), the State, etc. is unable to submit documents on the acquisition procedure of the land.

Even if considering the nature and purpose of the possession, if it appears that the State, etc. can not be ruled out that the ownership was lawfully acquired through the procedure for acquiring public property at the time of commencement of possession, it is difficult to deem that the State, etc. was proven that it was occupied without permission by being aware of such circumstances without the legal requirements for the acquisition of ownership.

Therefore, in such a case, it cannot be said that the presumption of possession with autonomy is broken.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da33866, Aug. 19, 2010). 2. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on its adopted evidence.

(1) On April 8, 1915, the area of the instant land is 149 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) maintained in Jeonyang-gun, Jeonyang-gun.