The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The issue of whether the possessor’s possession is an independent possession with the intention of possession or with no 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. As such, the fact that the possessor acquired the possession on the basis of title that the possessor does not have the intention of ownership in light of its nature is proved, or cannot be viewed as an possession with the intention of exercising exclusive control as his own property by excluding the ownership of another person, in other objective circumstances, such as where the possessor does not ordinarily indicate the intention of not taking place if the possessor was the actual owner or does not act that would naturally have taken place if the possessor was the actual owner, the presumption is broken even in cases where it is proved that the possessor did not have the intention of rejection of the ownership of another person and did not have the intention of possession.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da56765 delivered on March 24, 2000, etc.). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) occupied the instant land as an intention to own it, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant occupied the instant land as an intention to own it, and thus, the Defendant’s defense of the acquisition by prescription against the Defendant’s assertion of possession was broken, and dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of possession with intention to hold against the law of logic and experience.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.