The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State and Article 5 of the Addenda, since Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act and Article 5 of the Addenda stipulate that property devolving upon the State, the sales contract of which has not been concluded by the end of December 1, 1964, shall be State-owned without compensation, it is possible to possess the property devolving upon the State as State-owned property from

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the existence of a possessor’s possession should be determined solely on the basis of the nature of the title that was the cause of the acquisition at the time of the commencement of possession or all circumstances related to the possession (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da54204, Nov. 29, 1996). Thus, the presumption is broken down even in cases where it is proved that the possessor obtained possession on the basis of the title that the possessor does not have the intent to own, or where it cannot be deemed that the possessor possesses possession with the intent to exercise exclusive control, such as his own property, by excluding another’s ownership, with the intention to exercise exclusive control. In other words, it cannot be deemed that the possessor does not act normally if the possessor did not act, or if the possessor did not act to act as a real owner, it is objectively and objectively deemed that the possessor did not have the intent to reject the ownership of another person.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da53341 delivered on Nov. 24, 1995, etc.). Therefore, in a case where it is proved that an occupant occupied real estate owned by another person without permission with the knowledge of the fact that the possessor did not have any legal requirements, such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, barring any special circumstances, the presumption of possession with intention to own real estate is reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625 delivered on Aug. 21, 1997).