1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 5, 2014, the Defendant imposed an indemnity of KRW 19,170,700,000 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied the land of KRW 95 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from June 5, 2009 to June 4, 2014, among the State-owned land A, a ditch A, a ditch 640 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) without permission.

On December 29, 1979, the Audio-Gun Agricultural Cooperatives purchased B large 602 square meters and buildings adjacent to the said A’s land from the Audio-Gun Forestry Cooperatives (hereinafter “Audio-Gun Agricultural Cooperatives”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 31, 1980. After that, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the Plaintiff comprehensively transferred the rights and duties of the Audio-Gun Agricultural Cooperatives through the process of relevant statutes or corporate division, etc.

【In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, based on the following facts: Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 (including Serial Nos. 1) and the purport of the entire pleadings; and whether the disposition of this case is legitimate; since the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case in peace and public performance from Jan. 31, 1980, which was completed the registration of ownership transfer of neighboring land and its ground building; thus, the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case by prescription for the period of 20 years after the date

Judgment

1) In order to complete the statute of limitations for the acquisition of land owned by another person, a person must occupy the land in peace and openly for twenty (20) years with the intention to own the land. It is presumed that the possessor’s possession is an independent, good faith, peace, and public performance possession. However, in cases where it is proved that the possessor without permission occupied real estate owned by another person while well aware of the fact that it does not meet the legal requirements, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the possessor did not reject another’s ownership and did not have the intent to occupy it, and thus, the presumption of possession with the intent to own is broken (see Supreme Court, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da10