(a) Where the presumption of possession independently is reversed;

(b) The case holding that the presumption of autonomous possession was reversed with respect to the possession of the land by the purchaser of a building without permission constructed on the State-owned land;

A. Even if it is presumed that the possessor has the intention to own, the presumption that the possessor was in possession with the intention to exercise exclusive control, such as his own property, is reversed, when it is proved that the possessor had no intention to hold possession by objectively viewing that the possessor had no intention to hold possession by rejecting another person’s ownership, such as where the possessor did not ordinarily take an action if the possessor did not act as a real owner or would have taken place as a matter of course, or where it was proved that the possessor had no intention to hold possession by denying another person’s ownership.

B. The case holding that the presumption of autonomous possession was reversed with respect to the possession of the building site by the purchaser of the building without permission constructed on the State-owned land

(b)Article 197(1) and Article 245(1)(b) of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 94Da28680 decided Nov. 8, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1994) (Gong1994Ha, 3246), 94Da1445 decided Mar. 17, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1708), 94Da20402 decided Jul. 28, 1995 (Gong195, 2963)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na43155 delivered on October 7, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court below based on the records, the fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence, such as the litigation. There is no reason to discuss.

2. As to the second ground for appeal

The existence of the possessor’s intent to own real estate should be determined by the nature of the possessor’s source of possession right, but if the title is not clear, the possessor is presumed to be the possessor’s intention pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, it is presumed that the Plaintiff’s possession of the housing site in this case is also presumed to have been possessed as the owner’s intention to own.

However, even if it is presumed that the possessor has the intention to own it, the presumption that the possessor occupied it with the intention to exercise exclusive control as in his own property cannot be deemed to have been possessed by the possessor, i.e., the possessor did not take an ordinary position if the possessor was the actual owner, or if the possessor did not act as a matter of course, the presumption that the possessor occupied it with the intention to own is reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu21381, 21389, Nov. 13, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 94Da28680, Nov. 8, 1994).

However, according to the facts and records duly established by the court below, the plaintiff purchased only the housing of this case which was constructed without permission on the land in the dispute of this case, which was owned by the non-party Gwangju Construction Co., Ltd. around March 1967, and did not purchase the housing site with the knowledge that it was state-owned land. Since there are lots of state-owned land in the first place, which is the location of the land in this case, in the second place, the plaintiff had many people living together with the plaintiff, and the above unauthorized housing remains without permission until 1985 until December 31, 1985. In the process of completion inspection, the plaintiff followed the procedure on the premise that the land of this case, which is state-owned land, was owned by the non-party Gwangju Construction Co., Ltd., and the land of this case, which was occupied by the public inspection of the urban planning project on Sep. 19, 1983, the plaintiff can be seen to have occupied the land of this case, which is the objective possession of the land of this case.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the possession with autonomy or the presumption of possession with autonomy, the lack of reason, and the violation of the reasoning.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. Other reasons cited by the theory of lawsuit do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)