1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning real estate stated in paragraph 2 of the attached list shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the Defendant’s additional determination as to the assertion of prescriptive acquisition added by this court, and therefore, it is identical to the ground on the part of the second land in the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Determination on the assertion of prescriptive acquisition

A. The Defendant’s assertion is a valid registration that accords with the substantive relationship, as the period of prescription for the Defendant’s acquisition of the Defendant’s registry on December 27, 1996 or the period of prescription for the acquisition of possession on December 2012, 2006, which was 10 years from December 27, 1996, when the Defendant’s registration of ownership preservation on the second land was completed, and the registration of ownership preservation on the Defendant’s name

B. The issue of whether the possessor’s possession is an independent possession with the intention of possession or without the intention of possession is determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, not by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that caused the acquisition of possession, or by all circumstances related to the possession, and thus, it should be determined externally and objectively. As such, the objective circumstance that the possessor is proved that he/she acquired possession based on the title that appears to have no intention of possession by nature, or that he/she cannot be deemed as possessing possession with the intent of exercising exclusive control like his/her own property by excluding another’s ownership, i.e., the possessor’s failure to act as a matter of course if he/she had expressed the real owner’s attitude of not ordinarily or if he/she did not act as the owner, the presumption is broken even in cases where it is proved that the possessor did not have the intention of rejecting the ownership of another’s ownership

In addition, the possessor does not have any legal act or other legal requirements which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of commencement of possession.