The burden of proving the intention of possession as the requirement for possession by prescription.

In the case of the acquisition by prescription, the intention of possession, which is the requirement for the possession with intention of possession, must be determined by the nature of the source of possessory right which objectively causes the acquisition by possession, or if the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied as the intention of possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the possessor does not have the responsibility to prove that he is the possession with intention of possession with the nature of the source of possessory right, and the possessor has the burden

Articles 197(1) and 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Da708, 709, 82Meu1792, and 1793 Decided July 12, 1983 (Gong1983, 1248) (Gong1983, 1248) decided February 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 630) decided March 9, 1990 (Gong1990, 870) 90Meu21381, 21398 decided Nov. 13, 1990 (Gong191, 83)

Yellow Gyeong-man et al.

Kim Jho et al. and 11 others

Chuncheon District Court Decision 89Na2947 delivered on August 17, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and if so, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiffs acquired the forest land of this case by prescription is just.

The precedent of the theory of lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 81Da99 delivered on December 8, 1981) is not appropriate in this case.

Pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith and openly with his intention. In the acquisition by prescription, the intention of possession, which is an element for the possession with intention of possession, must be determined by the nature of the source of the possessor’s right which objectively causes the acquisition of possession. However, if the nature of the source of the possessor’s right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have possession with the intention of ownership pursuant to the above provisions of the Civil Act. Therefore, the possessor does not have the responsibility to prove that he is possession with intention of ownership, and the possessor has the burden of proof as to the possession with respect to the other party who asserts that the possessor is possession with no intention of possession (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Da708, 709, 709, 82Meu1792, 179

Furthermore, in this case, since the non-party 1, who is the deceased person of the plaintiffs, purchased and occupied the forest of this case, the other party is not affected by the result of the case of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or application of the law, such as the theory of litigation, in the judgment below.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)