The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and determined that the Defendant’s possession of each of the above lands was converted from the owner’s possession to the owner’s independent possession by purchasing the ownership transfer registration of each of the above lands in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the former Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition (amended by Act No. 2172 of January 1, 1970 and amended by Act No. 2264 of December 31, 1970, hereinafter “former Special Measures Act”) and completing the registration of ownership transfer from the owner’s title, and that the Defendant violated the provisions of the Requisition Act or the former Special Measures for Requisition Act, and thus, the Defendant’s possession can only be invalidated by the transfer registration of ownership of each of the above lands or the purchase and sale, which is the cause thereof. Therefore, the lower court determined that such circumstance alone alone is insufficient to reverse the presumption that the Defendant’s possession is not the owner’s independent possession or the presumption of possession.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on possession independently, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. The lower court should indicate that the Defendant’s initial possession of the land No. 1 of this case is based on requisition, and that the possession is an owner with the nature of the source of authority, and that in order to convert the possession into the possession with the intention of possession with the intention of possession again by the new source of authority, the person who has occupied or occupied the land to himself/herself.