beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal
A. 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 public performance pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Such presumption is equally applied to the possession by the State or a local government, which is the managing body of the cadastral record, etc., and even in cases where the possessor asserts the title of possession, such as sale and purchase or donation, but this is not recognized, the presumption of possession is reversed solely for such reason, or the possession is not deemed to be the possession
(2) The State, etc. did not submit the documents regarding the acquisition procedure of land for which the completion of the acquisition by prescription was claimed on February 26, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da28065 Decided February 8, 2007). Therefore, even if the State, etc. failed to submit the documents regarding the acquisition procedure of land for which the completion of the acquisition by prescription was claimed, considering the following: (a) the purpose and purpose of the possession; (b) whether the State, etc., made efforts to exercise the ownership on the cadastral record, etc. after the commencement of possession; and (c) the use or disposal of other divided land; and (d) the possibility that the State, etc. lawfully acquired the ownership by following the procedure for acquisition of public property at the time of the commencement of possession cannot be ruled out, the presumption of
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94731, 94748, Mar. 27, 2014).
The lower court determined that the Defendant’s possession of the instant land was broken out on the ground that there was no evidence to deem that the Defendant acquired the title to possess the instant land, such as taking the procedure for acquiring the property for public use, with respect to the instant land as indicated in the judgment of the lower court.
However, the above determination by the court below is as follows.