beta
Text
1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 174 square meters among the 5,174 square meters in Seopopoposi D-si.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant purchased the defendant's land on February 5, 1983 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 31, 1994.
B. The network E (hereinafter “the deceased”) purchased from F on May 28, 191 the G orchard 1,563 square meters adjacent to the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on June 1, 1991.
On July 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, as a result of the death of the Deceased, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the Plaintiff’s land on April 29, 2014, based on inheritance by consultation and division.
C. Part of the Defendant’s land is installed with a stone fence (the part connecting each point in the attached Form No. 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, and 57 among the indication of the land drawings).
Since May 28, 191, the deceased purchased the Plaintiff’s land, he/she occupied and used the instant land from around May 28, 1991 to the Defendant’s land.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the result of the appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation (Spores), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to Article 197(1) of the 197(1) of the 197(1) of the 197’s Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intention, so there is no responsibility to prove his/her own intention in the event of the possessor’s assertion of prescriptive acquisition. Rather, the possessor bears the burden of proof for a person who denies the establishment of prescriptive acquisition by asserting that the possessor’s possession does not have the intention to own. Therefore, the possessor is proved to have obtained possession on the basis of his/her title that the possessor appears to have no intention to own, or cannot be deemed to have occupied with the intention of exercising exclusive control