1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the acquisition by prescription of possession of the instant land has been completed since March 1979, as the Plaintiff did not own a farmer in each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 6 (including the provisional number), the following facts are found: (a) around August 11, 1978, the defendant Eul rendered a decision that it is difficult to establish the farmer's house after purchasing each land of this case; and (b) requested the plaintiff to keep the farmer's house while well managing the farmland; and (c) Upon the above request of the defendant Eul, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the farmer's house was displayed on each land of this case from January 1, 1979 to the present date.

However, Article 245(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A person who possesses real estate in peace and openly with the intention to own it for twenty years shall acquire ownership by registering it.” Article 197(1) of the Civil Act is presumed to be a possessor who has occupied it in good faith, peace and openly with the intention to own it.

The term "" is defined as ".

At this time, the issue of whether there is an intention to own shall not be determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that is the cause of the acquisition of possession, or by all circumstances related to the possession, external and objective.

In a case where it is proved that an occupant occupied real estate owned by another person without permission, even though he/she was aware of the absence of such legal requirements as to the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, barring any special circumstance, the presumption of possession with autonomy is reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Da37661, Mar. 16, 200; Supreme Court Decision 2012Da36081, Jan. 15, 2015). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff started farming in each of the instant land upon receiving a request from the Defendant B for the purchase of farmland while well managing farmland from the Defendant B.

Each of the instant cases at the time the Plaintiff started possession.