beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) except for the determination of the Defendant’s new additional assertion in the trial as provided in paragraph (2), this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the
2. Additional determination
A. If the Defendant’s preliminary defense that the Defendant occupied each of the instant lands, the Defendant purchased each of the instant lands around 1964 and occupied each of the instant lands in peace and openly and openly with the intention to own each of the instant lands for twenty years from that time, and thus, it was impossible to respond to the Plaintiff’s request.
B. Determination 1) Determination 1) Whether the possessor’s possession is an independent possession or a possession 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 is the cause of the acquisition of possession, or all circumstances related to the possession. Thus, it is objectively objective that the possessor is proved that he/she acquired the possession on the basis of the title that he/she does not have an intention of possession by nature, or that he/she is not deemed to possess the possession with an intention of exercising exclusive control like his/her own property by excluding another’s ownership. In other words, where it is proved that the possessor does not have an intention of possession or does not have an intention of possession as a matter of course, such presumption is broken even in cases where it is proved that the possessor did not have an intention of possession and did not have an intention of possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625, Aug. 21, 197).
Each of the above evidences, evidence No. 3, and evidence No. 4.