The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal and the grounds of incidental appeal are examined.

1. Where it is proved that the State or a local government occupied the land without permission knowing that the State or the local government has no legal requirements for acquiring ownership, it shall be deemed that the presumption of possession with intention to own the land has broken;

However, the state or local government has failed to submit documents on the acquisition procedure of land claiming the completion of prescriptive acquisition.

In light of the nature and purpose of the occupation, it is difficult to deem that the State or a local government can not be ruled out that it has lawfully acquired the ownership through the procedure for acquiring public property at the time the occupation was commenced. However, it is difficult for the State or a local government to prove that it occupied the land without permission upon knowing such circumstance without the legal requirements for acquiring the ownership. However, the cadastral record, etc. at the time the State or a local government commenced the occupation and use of the land is preserved without being destroyed. There is no description supporting the acquisition of the ownership by the State or a local government, and the acquisition procedure of the public property as stipulated in the State Property Act or the Local Finance Act at the time of purchase or donation

In a case where there is no objective data to support such possibility, and there is a lack of objective circumstances that can obtain on the grounds for non-submission, etc., the verification of illegal occupancy pursuant to lawful procedures shall not be denied in a case where the possibility of acquiring ownership is easily acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da88457, May 9, 2013). 2. The lower court recognized the same facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking into account the adopted evidence. As regards the land No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “No. 1 land”) listed in the attached Table 1 of the lower judgment regarding the land No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “No. 1 land”) on the road.