1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the allegations added by the defendant in this court, and therefore, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff completed the prescriptive acquisition on August 17, 2008, proposed the Defendant to purchase the land in the instant dispute amounting to three million won, on or after August 17, 2008. This is the Plaintiff’s approval of the Defendant’s ownership of the land in the instant dispute.

In other words, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, since the plaintiff's presumption of independent possession has been invalidated.

B. Determination 1) Even if the possessor offered a proposal to purchase the land to the other party after the expiration of the period of prescriptive acquisition, in general, the possessor may not be deemed as an expression of intent of the possessor to waive the benefit of prescription or as an occupation in bad faith, in light of the following cases: (a) the possessor attempted to purchase the land to resolve the dispute with the owner, even after the expiration of the period of prescriptive acquisition; (b) in light of the foregoing legal principles, the possessor cannot be deemed as an expression of intent that the possessor renounces the benefit of prescription or as an occupation in bad faith (see Supreme Court Decision 88Da5843, 88Meu5850, Apr. 11, 1989).

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted for reasons.

The judgment of the first instance is consistent with this conclusion.