beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (d) the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance “the possession status of K’s land among P land is as follows; and (d) the current status of K’s land among P land is the same as that indicated in the relevant part, except for the following.” Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judgment
The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs succeeded to the ownership or possession of each of the lands of this case, thereby occupying the above land for 20 years, and the prescriptive prescription has been completed on each date listed in the attached Table 4, and therefore the defendants are liable to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the above land to each of the plaintiffs' co-ownership. The defendants asserted that the plaintiffs' possession constitutes the possession of the land, and all of the claims of this case are groundless.
The issue of whether the possession by a possessor of relevant legal doctrine is an autonomous possession or a possession without the 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. Thus, it is proved that the possessor acquired the possession on the basis of the title that the possessor is deemed to have no intention of ownership due to its nature, or cannot be deemed to have occupied with the intent of exercising exclusive control like his/her own property by excluding the ownership of another person. In other words, if it is proved that there is an objective circumstance that the possessor, as a matter of course, has not expressed his/her attitude of not ordinarily taking place if the possessor did not act, or if he/she did not act to have taken place as a matter of course, it is presumed that the possessor had not expressed his/her intention of rejecting the ownership of another person.