1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the court shall dismiss “the Defendant” under Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “the Plaintiff,” and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the prescription for acquisition of possession added by the court of first instance as “the Plaintiff,” and (c) the reasoning of the judgment is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) thereby,

2. Judgment on the assertion of the prescription period for possession

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant had been possession of the reservoir of this case with the intention of ownership for not less than 20 years, and the acquisition by prescription was completed.

B.1) Determination 1) In a case where the State or a local government proves that it occupied land without any specific title, such as taking the procedure for acquiring public property under the Local Finance Act, such as one’s own shares or donation, or the State Property Act, or incorporating private land without a specific title that can occupy the land by obtaining the owner’s approval for use, etc., the presumption of autonomous possession should be deemed to be broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da64472, Mar. 27, 2001). 2) In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above circumstances, such as the following: (i) the real estate listed in the separate list No. 1 was known by the State or a local government based on the health stand, the above recognition, and the overall purport of the evidence and arguments mentioned above; and (ii) the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate in the separate list No. B from Oct. 19, 195 to Oct. 19, 204; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s ownership was destroyed or destroyed on Apr. 19, 20198.