1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts added or written by the following paragraph (2). Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

(a)on the 8th sentence of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

(D) The Defendant’s claim for the prescriptive acquisition of the instant land No. 1 (1) began to possess and manage the land as of March 31, 1965, and on September 25, 1996, the Defendant occupied and managed the instant land up to the present day, including by restoring the land to the original state on March 31, 196, and completing the preservation of ownership on September 25, 1996. As the Defendant occupied the instant land No. 1 at public stage for at least 20 years with the intention to own it, it acquired ownership due to the prescriptive acquisition or the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on the register pursuant to Article 245 of the

(2) (2) The presumption of the possession of real estate owned by another person is broken when it is proven that the possessor without permission has occupied real estate owned by another person without permission despite the knowledge of the absence of such legal requirements such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of commencement of possession. This is as set forth in the B. (2) judgment.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant occupied the land No. 1 in the case from March 31, 1965 to March 20, 1965, on the sole basis of the statement of No. 11 in the certificate of evidence No. 11, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that there was a juristic act that can be the cause of the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession of the land No. 1 of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant occupied the land No. 1 of this case without permission, even though it is well aware that there is no legal requirement, and thereby, the presumption of possession that