The judgment below

Among the principal lawsuit and the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the counterclaim, this part of the case is reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. 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 pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Such presumption is equally applied to the case of possession by the State or a local government, which is the managing body of the cadastral record, etc., and even in the case where the possessor asserted the source of right of possession, such as purchase and sale or donation, but such assertion is not acknowledged, the presumption of possession with autonomy cannot be deemed to have been reversed or to have been occupied by the nature of the source of possessory right, solely on the ground that the possessor does not have the burden

(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 the State, etc. cannot be ruled out that the right of ownership was lawfully acquired as a result of the acquisition procedure of public property at the time of commencement of possession, the presumption of autonomous possession by the State, etc. should not be recognized as an occupation without permission, by denying the presumption of autonomous possession by the State, etc.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da33866 Decided August 19, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94731, 94748 Decided March 27, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30168 Decided March 27, 2014, etc.). 2. The lower court indicated the attached drawings of the lower judgment among the 2010Da33866 Decided August 25, 2010 (hereinafter “each land of this case”).