beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle as to autonomous possession
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 by his/her own will pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, and such presumption shall also apply to cases where the State or a local government, which is the managing body of cadastral records, (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “State,
In addition, even if the possessor asserts the right of possession, such as the purchase and sale or donation, but this is not recognized, the presumption of possession with the sole reason that the possessor is not recognized as the possessor, can not be reversed or that the possessor is in possession with the nature of the possessor's source of possession, unless the burden of proof of the right of possession with respect to the title of possession
(2) The State, etc. is not obligated to submit the documents regarding the acquisition procedure of land for which the completion of acquisition by prescription is claimed. Therefore, even if the State, etc. failed to submit the documents regarding the acquisition procedure of land for which the completion of acquisition by prescription is claimed, considering the following: (a) the purpose and purpose of the possession; (b) whether the State, etc. made efforts to exercise the ownership of the land in the cadastral record after the commencement of possession; and (c) the relationship between the use or disposal of divided land and other land, if it cannot be ruled out that the State, etc. lawfully acquired the ownership as a result of the acquisition procedure of public property at the time of the commencement of possession, the presumption of autonomous possession by the State, etc. is denied, and thus, it is not recognized as an unauthorized occupancy.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da206952, Jul. 9, 2015). (B)
(1) The original judgment and the first instance court cited by the lower court shall comprehensively consider the adopted evidence.