1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The parties indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance are indicated.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the fourth to fifth of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the ground of the first instance judgment, except for the dismissal of the fourth to fifth of the judgment as “the second to fifth” as stated below; and (b) thus, the same is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be mard;

B. The Defendant asserts that the prescriptive acquisition of possession of the land of this case was completed, since he acquired ownership of the land of this case from N on September 27, 1957 and occupied it in peace and openly for not less than 20 years from the time of transfer of ownership of the land of this case.

Even if the State or a local government fails to submit a document regarding the fact that it has taken the procedure for acquiring the pertinent land, it cannot be readily concluded that the State or a local government occupied the relevant land with the knowledge that the cadastral record, etc. was destroyed by 625 pages or did not exist for any other reason, and that the State or a local government was registered as the owner in the cadastral record, etc., with the separate knowledge of the existence of another person in the cadastral record, etc. In light of the purpose and purpose of the occupation, if it is deemed that the possibility that the State or the local government lawfully acquired the ownership after undergoing the procedure for acquiring the public property at the time of the commencement of possession cannot be ruled out, it is difficult to view that the State or the local government had proved that it occupied the land without permission by being aware of such circumstance without the legal requirements for acquiring the ownership, and thus, the presumption of the autonomous possession of the relevant land cannot be reversed merely because the State or the local government did not submit a document about the procedure for acquiring the land. However, it is legitimate to the extent that the public