1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) deletion of "the intention of possession" of the fourth and fourth parts of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) addition of the fourth and fourth parts between the fifth and fourth parts, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated, except for addition of the following.

It is quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiffs to add are re-arguing that Q Q did not possess the land of this case as its owner’s intention.

However, 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, unless the possessor bears the burden of proving the right of possession with respect to the right of possession with the intention to hold the possession with the intention to hold the possession with the intention to hold the possession with the view to the nature of the possessor’

Only when it is proved that an occupant acquired possession on the basis of the title that appears to have no intention to own in its nature, or where it is proved that the possessor does not normally take place if the possessor but does not act to have taken place as a matter of course, etc., the presumption of autonomous possession is broken down.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da72743, Feb. 26, 2002). In light of such legal principles, Q has acquired possession on the basis of title that Q did not have an intent to own the instant land, solely based on the facts acknowledged earlier.

(1) In the event that there is a lack of proof that there is a behavior that is difficult to be deemed as the owner, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiffs' re-defense is without merit.

3. The decision of the first instance court is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.