The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

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 the real estate in good faith, in a peaceful and public performance manner pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. However, in a case where it is proved that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission despite the knowledge of the absence of any legal act or other legal requirements that may cause the acquisition of the ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, barring any special circumstance, the possessor shall be deemed to have rejected the ownership of another person and does not have an intention to occupy it. Thus, the presumption of possession

In addition, these legal principles are equally applied to cases of possession by the state or local government, which is the managing body of the cadastral record, etc., but the state or local government has failed to submit documents concerning the procedure for acquisition of land,

Even if the State or a local government is unable to exclude the possibility that the State or a local government has lawfully acquired the ownership through the procedure for acquiring public property at the time of the commencement of possession, in view of various circumstances, such as the situation and purpose of the possession, whether a person registered as the owner of the land in the cadastral record, etc. after the commencement of possession, and whether the State or a local government has endeavored to exercise the ownership in the cadastral record, etc., and the use or disposal of other divided land, etc., it is difficult to view that the State or a local government was aware of such circumstances

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da94731, 94748, Mar. 27, 2014; 2013Da32710, Aug. 20, 2014). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and then recognized the land cadastre of each of the instant lands.