beta
Text
1. The defendant points out to the plaintiff 3 to 8, 14 to 17, and 3 of the annexed drawings among the 105 105 Dang-si.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 2, 1979, the Plaintiff is an owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale and purchase on January 20, 1973 with respect to D Large 122 square meters (hereinafter “D land”), and owns one unit of non-registered single house on that ground.
B. The Defendant is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale and purchase on October 5, 1973 with respect to Da-si 105 square meters (hereinafter “C land”) on July 9, 1981.
C. However, a part of the Plaintiff’s detached housing located on the ground of D’s land occupies part of the Defendant’s land adjacent to it. The details thereof are the part of the ship which successively connects each point of 3 through 8, 14 through 17, and 3 of the attached Form C’s land (hereinafter “the part occupied in this case”).
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, video and appraiser E's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act as to whether the possessor of an object is an owner is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intent. Therefore, in cases where the possessor claims the acquisition by prescription, he/she does not bear the burden of proving his/her own intention. Rather, the possessor bears the burden of proving that the possessor is an owner without the intention of possession.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da28625, Aug. 21, 1997). Taking into account the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant possession is presumed to be an independent possession, and the burden of proving that it is an independent possession, not an independent possession, is the Defendant.
However, the evidence submitted by the defendant is merely a building ledger and it is not a possession with the intention of the plaintiff's possession.