1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is on December 15, 2017 with respect to C 641.7 square meters at the time of residing in Gyeonggi-do to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Main elements;

A. 1) In the case of permanent residence, E 1,514 square meters are F 891 square meters and C 641.7 square meters and C 641.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) around July 22, 1997.

2) On January 24, 1964, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Kimhae-gun on the instant land, and on December 6, 2018, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant on the ground of the inheritance of property due to the division through consultation.

3) On December 15, 1997, the Plaintiff formed and cultivated D 1,483.8 square meters adjacent to the instant land as a single rice field, and installed a vinyl house from 2016 to the present. [In the absence of any dispute over recognized evidence, A1 through 22, witness G’s testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. 1) The possessor of the cause of the claim is presumed to have occupied the land in good faith, peace, and public performance with his own intent (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). The Plaintiff’s possession of the land in this case is presumed to have occupied the land in peace and public performance with his intent to own it. 2) The Defendant asserts that the presumption of possession is reversed because the Defendant, while knowing that there was no legal act or any other legal requirements that could cause the Plaintiff to acquire ownership at the time, he occupied the land

It is not determined according to the intention of the possessor with the intention of the possessor, whether the possessor is the possession with intention or not, but the possession should be determined externally and objectively according to the nature of the source of title which is the cause of the acquisition of possession or all circumstances related to the possession.

The possessor is proved to have acquired possession on the basis of the title which appears to have no intention to own on the basis of its nature, or the objective circumstance that the possessor cannot be deemed to have occupied with the intention to exclusively control as his own property by excluding the ownership of another person, i.e., the possessor would have taken the action that the possessor would have not taken ordinarily if he were the real owner, or would have taken the action that the possessor would have taken.