1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant on November 28, 2005, with respect to B large-scale 387 square meters to the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case by the court of first instance is as follows: (a) add the judgment of the Defendant as to the argument emphasized by the court of first instance; and (b) add the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2)

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the use of the paragraph (9) (Chapter 12 to 20) under the following "paragraph (3)." Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff asserted was not able to prove that the deceased I, the father’s father, was donated the instant land from the deceased C, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the developments leading up to occupying the instant land is inconsistent. As such, the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land ought to be deemed as the possession of the Plaintiff.

B. As indicated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited earlier, if the nature of possessory right is not clear, it is presumed that the possessor was possessed as an intention of possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. As such, the possessor is not responsible for proving that the possessor is an autonomous possession by the nature of the possessor’s possessor, and the possessor bears the burden of proving the possession to the other party claiming that the possessor

Therefore, even though the possessor asserts his/her right to possession such as purchase and sale, but the possessor does not recognize his/her source of possession right, the presumption of possession with autonomy can not be reversed or it cannot be viewed as the possession with the nature of the possessor's source of possession.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Da708 Decided July 12, 1983, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da43529 Decided October 11, 2013, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health care unit as to the instant case and the circumstance alleged by the Defendant alone are insufficient to reverse the presumption of possession with the intent of the Plaintiff’s possession, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Supreme Court Decision 98Da29834 Decided March 12, 1999 cited by the defendant is the acquisition by prescription.