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

B. Whether it can be deemed that the State or a local government is not aware of the acquisition of possessory source by taking legal procedures for acquiring land owned by an individual (negative)

A. In the case of the acquisition by prescription, the existence or absence of an intention that forms the requisite for the possession is objectively determined by the nature of the source of possessory right, which is the cause of the acquisition by prescription. However, if the nature of the source of possessory right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to have been possessed as an intention under Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the possessor is not actively liable to prove that he/she is an possession with the nature of the source of possessory right, and there is

B. Although it is not acknowledged that the State or a local government lawfully acquired the source of possessory right by taking the procedure for acquiring land owned by an individual, such fact alone cannot be deemed as the possession of possessory right by the nature of the source of possessory right by changing the presumption of possessory right.

(a)Articles 245 and 197, Section 1 (a) of the Civil Procedure Act;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Dong-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Leecheon-gun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na36781 delivered on July 10, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of the supplemental appellate brief).

1. The intention of possession, which is the requirement for the acquisition by prescription, should be objectively determined by the nature of the source of possessor’s right which is the cause of the acquisition by possession. However, if the nature of the source of possessor’s right is not clear, the possessor is presumed to possess as the owner’s intention pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the possessor is not actively liable to prove that the possessor is possession by virtue of the nature of the source of possessor’s right, and the possessor bears the burden of proof for the possession to the other party who asserts that the possession by possession is the owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Da708, Jul. 12, 1983).

Therefore, even if it is not recognized that the state or local government lawfully acquired the source of possessory right by taking the procedure for acquiring the land under the possession of the individual, such fact alone cannot be viewed as the possession with the nature of the source of possessory right by changing the presumption of possessory right (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da11961 delivered on June 23, 192).

In this regard, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant Gun purchased the previous land from the non-party 1 on March 28, 1962 before the replotting of the land of this case which was originally owned by the non-party 2, and continuously occupied and used it as the site of library, public storage building, etc. The defendant's possession is presumed to be an independent possession, and thus the defendant's acquisition by prescription as of March 28, 1982 is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. According to the records, as pointed out in the lawsuit, the defendant Gun calculated the land substitution liquidation subsidy according to the reduction of the land in this case, which was disposed of as a result of the execution of the land readjustment project on around 1981, and recorded the recipient in the relevant register in the name of the above deceased non-party 2, and notified the plaintiff, who is the property successor, of the aggregate land tax as object of taxation of this case on around 1991 after the filing of the lawsuit in this case. However, regardless of whether the person in charge of the defendant Gun is the actual owner of the land in this case, it can be found that it was merely the fact that the defendant's person in charge of the affairs as the owner on the land in this case, regardless of whether the actual owner of the land in this case is the owner on the land in this case. Meanwhile, according to the records, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as the grounds for rejection of the defendant's intention to own the land in this case as the owner on the land in this case, and it cannot be viewed as the defendant's objection to the above land in this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.