beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the cases where the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, Chapters 8, 13, and 11 are used as follows, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance. In a case where the nature of the source of right to possess real estate, which was used as a whole, is unclear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with his/her own will pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. This presumption is also the same in case where the State or a local government, which is the managing body of the judgment of the first instance,
In addition, in a case where it is proved that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission knowing the fact that the possessor does not meet the legal requirements such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession without permission, barring special circumstances, the possessor shall be deemed not to have an intention to reject the ownership of another person and to occupy it. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intention to own is broken.
However, in cases where the completion of prescriptive acquisition is asserted for the land possessed by the State, a local government, or a public institution (hereinafter “State, etc.”), the State, etc. is unable to submit documents on the acquisition procedure of the land.
Even if considering the nature and purpose of the possession, if it appears that the State, etc. can not be ruled out that the ownership was lawfully acquired through the procedure for acquiring public property at the time of commencement of possession, it is difficult to deem that the State, etc. was proven that it was occupied without permission by being aware of such circumstances without the legal requirements for the acquisition of ownership.
Therefore, in such a case, it cannot be said that the presumption of possession with autonomy is broken.
Supreme Court Decision 2010Da33866 Decided August 19, 2010 and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da33866 Decided April 19, 2016.