(a) The burden of proving the intention of possession with respect to the acquisition by prescription;

B. The time when the possession of the person who acquired the property devolving upon the State becomes the possession frequently (=the date of redemption completion)

A. An intention of possession, which is the content of possession with intention to hold possession, should be determined depending on the nature of the source of possessory right, but if the nature of the source of possession is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied in peace and openly with intent to hold possession pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the possessor is not actively liable to assert and prove that the possessor is possession with intention to hold possession with intention to hold possession, and is not obligated to prove that the possessor is the owner with intention

B. From the date of the completion of the repayment of the property devolving upon the State, the possession of the remaining portion ought to be regarded as possession independently.

(b)Articles 245 and 197, paragraph 1(b) of the Civil Code; Article 22 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership;

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 89Meu18440 delivered on March 9, 1990 (Gong1990, 870) (Gong1990, 199) 91Da6139 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2149) 91Da27273 delivered on October 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2826) B. Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Da557 delivered on December 11, 1984 (Gong1985,158)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 1 and two others, a lawsuit taken over by the deceased Nonparty 1

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 5

Busan District Court Decision 90Na8739, 8746 delivered on June 14, 1991

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants shall be avoided, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above part of the land owned by the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the non-party 2, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1's possession and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the above building site.

Pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, if the nature of the source of possession is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the source of possession in a public performance with the intention of possession. Thus, the possessor is not actively responsible for proving that the source of possession is the possession with intention of possession, but is responsible for proving it to the other party who asserts that the possession is the possession with intention of possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da6139, Jul. 12, 1991; 89Meu1840, Mar. 9, 1990).

However, in this case, the above non-party 2 obtained the above ( Address 1 omitted) site and completed the repayment thereof shall be deemed possession independently (refer to the above non-party 2 and the defendants continue possession with the knowledge that the part of the land in this case was acquired the ownership by being the part of the above ( Address 1 omitted). Thus, in order to determine that the above non-party 2 and the defendants' possession is not the autonomous possession of the land in this case, it shall be deemed that the title of the possession is the possession, or that there is any objective reason that it cannot be the autonomous possession.

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the defendants' assertion by recognizing the possession of the defendants' assertion without examining these points, but it cannot be deemed that the defendant possessed possession with the intention to own it, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on autonomous possession, which is the requirements for the prescriptive acquisition of ownership, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument pointing this out

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)