beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is that “Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 of the 11th sentence No. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 of the 11th sentence” is “Evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 8, and 15 of the 11th sentence.” In addition to adding the following judgments as to the allegations added by the Defendants in this court, it is identical to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Defendants’ assertion of the statute of limitations 1) On August 20, 201, the Defendant’s assertion of the Defendants: (a) on or after the donation of the first land of this case from AO to pay the operating expenses of AO fraternity each year; (b) purchased its own money on the first land which falls short of the replotting standards under the farmland Improvement Act; and (c) cultivated the surrounding land after replotting by satisfying the pertinent standards; and (d) the Defendants succeeded to the possession of the network AD and openly and openly with the intent of ownership, occupied the land after the instant replotting. Since the prescriptive acquisition of the land was completed on or around August 20, 201 after the lapse of twenty (20) years from August 20, 191, the registration of ownership transfer in the names of the Defendants is valid as a registration consistent with the substantive relations. (b) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the possession of the network AD and the Defendants constitutes the possession based on the right to lease, and thus, cannot be reversed.
B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intent. Therefore, in cases where the possessor asserts the acquisition by prescription, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention, and the possessor bears the burden of proving the acquisition by prescription to a person who denies the establishment of the acquisition by prescription
And it is whether the possessor's possession is the intention of possession.