beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 12, 16, 15, 14, among the land size of 1031 square meters prior to Jeju-si, Jeju-si.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) except for the case where “LB 1082” was used in the second part of the judgment of the first instance as “M 1082 LA”; and (b) it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, (c) it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff asserts that Gap acquired the prescription by purchasing the part of the land of this case from the defendant on March 2, 1972 and occupying it with the intention of ownership for 20 years. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the part of the land of this case was leased to A, and that the possession of A and the plaintiff constituted the possession of the owner.
B. Pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, as the possessor of an article is presumed to have occupied it with his/her intention to own, the possessor does not bear the burden of proving his/her intention to own in cases of claiming the acquisition by prescription. Rather, the possessor bears the burden of proving the acquisition by prescription to a person who denies the establishment of the possessor’s possession by asserting that he/she has no intention to own. Therefore, the possessor cannot be deemed to have acquired possession on the basis of his/her title which appears to have no intention to own due to its nature, or the possessor cannot be deemed to possess possession on the basis of his/her own intent to exercise exclusive control, such as his/her own property by excluding another’s ownership, in other words, where it is proved that the possessor had proved that he/she had no intention to own on the ground of external and objective perspective, such presumption is broken (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da7352, 77369, Mar. 15, 2002).