A. The assertion that the land has been occupied as the intention to own as a gift is unlawful without examining whether the gift was received, and it cannot be viewed as an autonomous possession due to the nature of the title.

B. Since the possession is presumed to be possession independently, the person who asserts that he did not have the intention to own should reverse the presumption by proving his assertion.

A. The assertion that the land has been occupied as the intention to own as a gift is unlawful without examining whether the gift was received, and it cannot be viewed as an autonomous possession due to the nature of the title.

B. Since the possession is presumed to be possession independently, the person who asserts that he did not have the intention to own should reverse the presumption by proving his assertion.

Article 197(1) of the Civil Act

Llinite Group

Defendant 1 and four others

Daegu District Court Decision 71Na235 delivered on July 18, 1972

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

The judgment of the court below, on the ground of the rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the completion of the period for acquiring the ownership of the forest of this case, explained that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it without believing the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial, the witness of the first instance trial, the witness of the court below, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5 of the court below, and the non-party 5 of the non-indicted 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5 of the non-party 5 of the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 5 of the court below's decision, who established and managed a grave on

However, unless there are other special circumstances, if the plaintiff provided 849 square meters of the forest of this case to the Gun as a common cemetery and occupied it, it shall be deemed that there was any title necessary for the plaintiff to possess the forest of this case, and according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff occupied the forest of this case with an intention to own it by donation from the non-party 6. Thus, the court below should have determined whether the plaintiff received a donation from the non-party 6, and it should not be viewed that the plaintiff, who installed and managed the grave of this case in the land of this case, had possession of the forest of this case as an intention to own the forest of this case by the nature of his title. In addition, the court below's explanation that the plaintiff cannot be viewed as having occupied the forest of this case as an intention to own the forest of this case by the nature of his title as stated in the court below, and the possessor of the object is presumed to have been possessed as an intention to own the grave of this case, and it shall be reversed and remanded to the court below's judgment.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho