A. The burden of proving the intention to hold possession as the requirement for acquisition by prescription

(b) Whether the title of the possession alleged by the possessor has been denied can be viewed as the possession on the other hand;

(c) the significance of possession with an intention of possession with respect to prescriptive acquisition;

A. In the case of prescriptive acquisition, the intention of possession, which is the requirement for possession with intention to hold it objectively, is determined by the nature of the source of possessory right, but if the nature of the source of possessory right is unclear, it is presumed that the possessor is possession with intention to hold it independently pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the possessor does not have the responsibility to prove the nature of the source of possessory right to support the possession with intention to hold it independently, and the other party

B. Even in a case where the possessor asserts the right of possession, such as sale and purchase, but this is not recognized, the presumption of possession with autonomy cannot be reversed or deemed as the possession with the nature of the possessor’s possession.

(c) The possession with autonomy means a possession with the intent to control identical to the owner, that is, the right to control by law, that is, the right to control by law, or that is not the possession with ownership or with the belief of having ownership;

(a)Article 197(a)(b) of the Civil Code;

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1523 Decided December 13, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 83Da615 Decided January 31, 1984, and Supreme Court Decision 85Meu771 Decided March 13, 1984

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and 5 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na4051 Decided October 8, 1985

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Although the Plaintiff’s intention to possess possession is objectively determined by the nature of the source of possession right, if the nature of the source of possession right is unclear, it is presumed by Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the possessor is not liable to prove the nature of the source of possession right to support his own possession, and the possessor bears the burden of proving the nature of the source of possession right to other owner by destroying the above legal presumption, and even if the possessor asserts the title of possession, such as sale, but this cannot be deemed to have been reversed the presumption of possession or as the owner’s possession in light of the nature of the source of possession right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Meu71, Feb. 25, 1986; 83Meu10, Mar. 13, 1984). The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s order to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s possession of each of the above land with the permission of Nonparty 1 as the owner of the above land with the permission of the competent 1,500 adjoining land for sale.

However, it means the possession with the intent to exercise the same control as the owner, and it does not mean the possession with the right to exercise such control, i.e., the right to hold ownership or with the belief that the possessor has ownership. Since the possession by the possessor is presumed to have been possession with autonomy, it is not recognized that the deceased non-party 1 purchased the land from the non-party 2, etc. who was the owner of the land in this case. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the deceased non-party 1’s possession was not the possession with intention to hold the land in this case.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below cannot be justified because it misunderstanding the legal principles on the possession with independence or did not properly satisfy the reasons, which points out this issue.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)