1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the Plaintiff occupies agricultural crops, such as bean, in the form of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) on which the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) may be acknowledged according to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the land number).

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff asserted that each of the lands of this case was an area where the people cannot enter the north bank area after the restoration of water, and that the acquisition by prescription on March 1, 1993, which was 20 years after the date of possession, was completed, in a case where the land of this case was reclaimed around 172 around 197 and possessed for more than 40 years since rhyth of March 1, 1973, which was rhyth of the land of this case.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff has occupied maliciously without permission.

B. According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, the possessor of an object is presumed to have occupied the object as his/her own intent. As such, in cases where the possessor asserts the acquisition by prescription, he/she does not bear any responsibility to prove his/her own intention. Rather, he/she bears the burden of proof to a person who denies the establishment of the acquisition by prescription by asserting

However, it is not determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that caused the acquisition of the possession, or by all circumstances related to the possession, rather than by the possessor’s own intention, whether the possessor is an independent possession or a non-exclusive possession with no intention to own, and therefore, should be determined externally and objectively. Therefore, it is proved that the possessor has acquired the possession based on the title that appears to have no intention to own due to its nature, or that the possessor is not deemed to have occupied with the intent to exercise exclusive control like his own property by excluding the ownership of another.